Sarah Palin Totally Supports Gay Rights! (Yeah Right)
September 30th, 2008 by Evil BeetFrom her interview tonight with Katie Couric:
But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.
You hear that, people?
Homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable choice.
She also thinks that teenage victims of rape and incest really ought to have the babies no matter what. Although she wouldn’t actually support jailing the aforementioned teenager for not wanting to carry the incest-rapey child in her body for nine months and then endure the pain of passing it through her vaginal canal just so it’s extra extra extra hard to get closure on that sort of unspeakable trauma, so that’s sweet. Oh, and the morning-after pill? That’s a no-go with her, too.
Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?
Palin: I am pro-life. And I’m unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people’s opinions on this. Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.
Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Palin: I’m saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you’re asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That’s nothing I would ever support.
Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?
Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and save, and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see …
Couric: And so you don’t believe in the morning-after pill?
Palin: … I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven’t spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.
Couric: I’m sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill.
Palin: Personally, and this isn’t McCain-Palin policy …
Couric: No, that’s OK, I’m just asking you.
Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.
ZOMG.
I can’t write any more about this.
I’m already in a bad enough mood.
Before you leave a comment, please make sure you've read our Guide to Commenting. It could save you a great deal of embarrassment.
hi joan: i missed you too and being here. work exploded and i have a sick 3 year old – he’s having surgery on friday. so it’s nice to be back!
@quirkygirlkitten: too funny. everyone else goes on ad nauseum and you sum it up with one line. love it!
Still ignoring science and pretending this is a religious issue. It’s a about giving ALL human beings equal, legal rights. Religion doesn’t enter into the matter unless you are personally religious, and is not legally binding.
Medical science proves the existence of a separate, individual person in the womb from the moment of conception. Deliberate, pre-meditatated destruction of that life is murder. Murder should not be left to one’s personal discretion. And it is not a private issue when tax dollars are funding abortion.
Yo own your own body but not your child’s. Your job is to protect your child, not destroy him.
Unless your life is in direct immediate danger, you have the obligation to do everything in your power to protect your child as he is powerless to do so.
Forcing a woman to have a baby is denying her the right to make decisions about her body. Forcing a woman to carryout a pregnancy regardless of her financial situation (hospital bills and poor healthcare), forcing her to carryout a pregnancy whether or not she could lose her job or have to drop out of school, and forcing a woman or young girl who is the victim of rape to carry through a very painful reminder of her attack is nasty and brutal.
You are still denying the fact that women will ALWAYS HAVE ABORTIONS REGARDLESS OF LAWS. Women have been doing it since the beginning of time with various methods. And they have been dying or becoming ill due to unsafe and unclean conditions. We are finally at a point in our society’s history where we’ve acknowledged this fact and the Supreme Court made a decision so that a woman’s safety and right not to have a back alley abortion is protected. You can preach about how wrong it is until you are blue in the face, but it is a part of life and will not just go away. The only way to help lower the number of abortions is proper sex education and access to contraception and birth control.
And if you think that these women deserve to die or suffer, and you self righteously believe justice is being served, well, I think there’s something wrong there.
Plus, Lee made a great point. Here in Chicago, DCFS just took a huge budget cut. There is no money for these kids. There are not enough safe homes for these kids.
If people spent as much time and money trying to find homes for their children as they do planning their wedding which lasts all of one day, there would be no problem.
It’s an outright lie that pro-lifers care nothing for mother and child after birth. They’re the ones who adopt thousands of the most severely disabled, crack addicted, aids and fetal alcohol afflicted babies. They adopt outside their own race and don’t feel a need to go outside the country to do it. Much of it is done quietly and they’re raising large families on little income. It is possible to raise a family of 5 on less than $30,000 a year. Not easily, but happily. But people today simply refuse to make the sacrifices. They can’t imagine not being able to get their hair done or go on vacation.
Those people will never know the tremendous burden of raising these children it’s true, but they won’t experience that kind of joy that results from the hard work either.
Bottom line is that once the egg is fertilized, the CHOICE has been made. There is no going back. You can destroy the evidence, but you can’t pretend a child never existed.
She doesn’t seem to understand what the morning after pill is. It’s not an abortion pill. It STOPS conception from ever occuring, just like the pill or a condom. You can be pro-life and still allow victims of rape the morning after pill.
Bottom line is that it is not a scientific fact that life begins at conception. Scientifically speaking conception is a PROCESS. Therefore to pinpoint an exact time at which a person comes to an existence is merely a line in the sand. Religiously, life begins at conception.
But this is not even a religious nor a scientific issue. Abortion is the right of the child v the right of the woman. Most of the time, if you debate it up and down–past religion and science– you are only left with a moral issue.
Aborion– very personal choice, and if it only affected one person it might stay a private matter…but whose personal choice? The only reason the abortion debate becomes publicized and politicized is because we already know how one person stands on the issue. The mother–”my body my world.” However, there are two people in that immediate pregnant equation. It becomes publicized and politicized because there is one person, the child–”it WILL be my body my world”– who some argue should be able to exercise their personal choice. Naturally, unborn children aren’t capable of exercising that personal choice because they are dependent on the mother, but that hasn’t stopped courts from stepping in as guardians in the best interest of the child in abuse cases–yet. The debate is not your right to choice v your no right to choice–its about the right to choice for the mother and the right to choice for the child. That’s the complex and very paradoxical abortion debate!
It will never die. We will never live in a perfect world where a person won’t put themselves before others (or the unborn). Soooo the only thing good that comes out of the long debate is that both sides of the argument begin to understand their ideal position cant exist in an unideal world—without each other. Both sides of the argument are basically tied to each other like eternal mother–cord–child. Which is why every time one has a point, the other will be able to counter it–because like woman–cord–child they are interdependent. “But when she actively stands against women having a safe choice, I cannot call her pro-women. When she wants to take our reproductive freedom away, I cannot say that she stands for women’s rights.” I hope you understand that means that I can’t consider you pro-children. When you want to take their freedom to develop away, I can not say you are for childrens rights. By standing for the woman’s right to a safe choice you are standing against the safest choice for the child–to be born v to be terminated. Even to be born to a bad life– a bad life is better than no chance (choice) to make it though life. Many people who come from horrendous circumstances grow up to be phenomenal people. To say you’d rather kids be terminated if they MIGHT have to live an abused or adopted life—means you are discriminating against class. Only financially– correlating to physically emotionally–kids are worth saving.
Publicizing the debate is important because each side brings a core value. From the left, individual choice is paramount. From the right, children are our future. In this way conservatism brings –respect yourself and respect life.. Liberalism brings importance of freedom to act without limitations. Together the goal in an unideal world is being responsible and respectful so that way while you are out exercising your freedom you won’t curtail the freedom of others. In practice that means the availability of choice (liberalism) with the emphasis on respect for life (conservatism) morph society to an imperfect but close goal of having LESS people faced with the predicament of such a HARD personal choice as separating something so interdependent as do I put my personal choice ahead of the child’s personal choice or the other way around..
I apologize for typos ect. Nor an I ever ever doing this long spiel on this blog ever again.
Our taxes should definitely be put to better use, no question. To nurture human lives, not destroy them. Women have the choice not to raise their own children. THEIR right to life is already legally protected. The child’s life is not. He is being forced into a death sentence for the crime of having been conceived. Where is HIS choice, his rights? Despite residing temporarily in his mother’s womb, he is an individual, separate from his mother. No infant outside the womb can survive without perpetualcare. Do we ignore these facts and say their lives don’t matter? Pretend they don’t exist?
The lives of millions of unborn are not legally protected even though science proves their personhood. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act identifies them as children in the womb. It is illegal to kill any child in the wombif he is wanted. Yet if mom decides she WANTS him dead, she can have him killed. There are are contradictions here. Lacy Peterson had the right to kill Connor, but her husband did not. In certain states, there ARE still abortions being legally performed at 7, 8 months.
Ru486 is killing thousands of women legally. And of course, abortions are never safe for the child.
The stigma of a being a single parent should be removed. We should be reaching out to help these women and children not condemning. Birth control should be used but as we are all aware that it is no guarrantee, especially with teens. Condoms fail all the time, but more often than not, people simply fail to use them every time. And certainly, we’re not so naive as to think that parents have the ability to control their teens every action. We could hire the secret service to follow them around and they’d still find a way to have sex.
Of course there will always be abortions no matter what the laws say. Murders occur everyday despite homicide laws. But the unborn are the only ones not legally protected. At a woman’s whim, she can hire a doctor to carry out a hit on her own child without legal consequence, and force the taxpayers to foot the bill.
great points!
But Individual choice is about providing that choice for EVERY individual. It cannot be exclusive to women of child-bearing age.
Guardian ad-litems for the unborn is necessary because their rights to life are being ignored.
Religion should be kept out of it, but current abortion laws DO take their cues from science. Viability is a factor in many state laws. 26 weeks used to be standard, but as technology has advanced, viabilty is currently at 20 weeks. Current science centering around DNA shows definitively that life begins at fertilization and not before. Persona;lity traits are determined, gender, hair, eye & skin color etc.
Murder cannot be optional. It cannot be anyone’s personal choice. The child is a separate individual. His life should be protected. We’re not speaking of whether to have a tumor sliced up and vaccumed out.
The whole concept of abortion having been decided as a privacy issue is unconstitututional.
Roe vs Wade, decided in terms of an implied right to privacy, is in fact, not based in the Constitution. The Court’s decision is riddled with contradictions, law-making decisions (which the Court is not supposed to do), and rather strange Constitutional interpretations.
The Fourteenth Amendment deals with procedural limitations regarding life, liberty, and property. While we are guaranteed such rights without government interference, the government can indeed infringe upon our life, liberty or property as long as it gives notice and an opportunity to be heard.
This amendment was also used to extend the Bill of rights to states as well as Congress, but it was not intended to add concrete rights to the Constitution. Nowhere, in fact, does the Constitution mention privacy, which is invaded by any government action and certainly any criminal statute. Justice Blackmun decided that a “right of personal privacy…does exist under the Constitution” and this personal privacy “right” creates a limited right to have an abortion.
It’s debatable whether there is indeed an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, but regardless of one’s opinion on that, it seems tenuous and irresponsible of the Court to expand this right to the right to terminate the life of the unborn. After all, the right to privacy doesn’t expand to many other areas in a woman’s life, but somehow, without specific justification, it extends to the right to have an abortion? In addition, the idea that the right to an abortion is a “constitutional” right begs the question: are there then constitutional rights that apply only to certain groups of people? After all, this “right” to abort certainly does not extend to men, so does this mean that women have fundamental rights that men do not? Should men then, have a Constitutional right that applies to them, but excludes women? What other rights beside privacy are “implied” by the Constitution, if any? And what is “private” about an abortion–is it any more private than infanticide? Is there any government intrusion that does not invade privacy?
.
Lauralee… you are very articulate and obviously have a very well-thought out position on this issue. But so do many of us on the other side of this. Personally, I do not agree with abortion, nor would I have ever had one and I would definitely try to help a friend make a choice to have a baby before I would encourage abortion. But still…. I agree that this issue is so infinitely difficult because scientifically this is not black and white. If it were, we would not be arguing this point. It is a philosophical/moral/religious issue. And many, many people who are equally religious, moral and philosophical have vastly differing viewpoints. How can I presume to KNOW that my God and her/his “moral edicts” are MORE right than my friend whose faith differs ( Jew, Christian, Hindi, Buddhist, Muslim, Athiest) How can I possibly be a true democrat (with a small “d” – the kind that all of us Americans are supposed to be) and legislate on such issues? I can’t! And frankly, neither can you nor any other Pro-Lifer.
What I don’t understand is that there are many philosophical/moral/religious issues beyond abortion that are equally or even vastly more important and they are completely disregarded by the ONE ISSUE Pro-life voters. WHY??? The right to life does NOT end at birth!!!
The right to life includes the right to an existence with dignity. It includes having fiscal policies that afford every citizen in this country the right to a dignified existence. It includes policies that foster social justice. The right to life does NOT condone state-sanctioned murder, such as the DEATH PENALTY! Well, I could go on and on. You get my gist.
I am definitely pro women vs. pro-zygote when it comes to a woman having access to a safe and clean abortion that she will seek regardless of law. I cannot condone banning a safe procedure for women who wish to terminate their pregnancy. I do not think less of anyone who is pro-life. It is absolutely your choice and I support you whatever choice you make. Adoption, abortion, or keeping the baby yourself. I look forward to the day when I myself am ready for a family and get to go through a pregnancy myself!
Have you ever read accounts from families who have watched their mother die from infection that follows a back alley abortion? It’s awful. And it was sadly a big part of life pre Roe v. Wade. And it will be again if anything ever happens to our freedom.
This is a difficult debate, but I will always be staunchly feminist about this issue, and will stand by my beliefs that should a woman choose to terminate her pregnancy, she does not have to die for it. And when rape is involved, I really do think it is cruel and unusual punishment to force a wmoan to have a baby.
Actually, we legislate morality everyday. Well, we don’t personally, but the courts do. Rightly, or wrongly they often decide who lives and dies. They once edcided thatvpeople of color counted only as3/5 of a human being, and could be bought and sold, maimed and killed at the owners personal discretion. My prpoerty, my choice.
I’ve watched plenty of mothers die from the ’safe’ and legal abortion pill, as well as countless numbers of children for whom this simple ‘procedure’ has NEVER been safe. They get no funeral, no acknowledgement of ever having existed. I have seen a child survive an abortion. She is now what many will call deformed, but is otherwise healthy.
I think this issue is only religious though only if one happens to be religious and has no bearing from a legal standpoint. But certainly our laws should reflect the rights of of all, not just specific groups.
This whole idea of better the kid die than me have to suffer isn’t really even the debate. No one is acknowledging that another human being is involved separate from the mother, one that cannot defend himself as she can. If they do, it is deemed irrelevant. That fact is glossed over and keeps going back to forcing a woman to give birth. People would rather have cancer it seems than have a baby.
If her life is directly in danger, such as in a case of ectopic pregnancies, where both mother and child will die without intervention, mom will be saved and baby allowed to die but even then, direct abortion is unnecessary. The fallopian tubes will be removed and child growing inside those tubes will die a natural death.
A pregnant rape victim still has her life after an abortion. Her child does not. It’s not about taking her rights away, it is about preserving the rights of both equally.
You ALL make excellent cases for why a woman shouldn’t want a child. And I certainly don’t believe any woman should be forced to raise her child without help.
And yes, I oppose the death penalty, any form of torture, or pre-emptive war. We don’t have the right to arbitrarily kill ANY innocent, defenseless human being. In my view, the death penalty is revenge, not justice and we risk ending the lives of people later found to be innocent. It doesn’t erase the crime or the pain it caused. anyway. It doesn’t really give the victim any satisfaction.
Never made sense to me to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. But of course, death row inmates have the right to appeal. Victims of abortion have no guardian ad-litems speaking up for them.
I hate to extend this debate, since it’s putting a real downer on the gossip, but Lauralee’s response demands some counterpoint.
Sure, her response is well-thought-out and articulate. But, as she writes, it is up to interpretation whether there is a constitutional right to privacy and whether this right extends to abortion. Of course, it was interpreted that way by the Supreme Court. Lauralee interprets it differently.
Lauralee also seems to think that he rights of a woman are superseded by the rights of a zygote. Abortion is simply not the same as infanticide because a woman’s very state of physical being is tied up with the embryo or fetus living, attached, inside of her. Lauralee’s argument is an attempt to be “scientific” about abortion, but it relies heavily on emotions and guilt, and envisioning even the tiniest clump of cells as a “baby”.
In the case of a planned or otherwise wanted pregnancy, we make it our job to protect the embryo or fetus (and, I understand that, biologically, our body kicks into pregnancy mode whether we like it or not, but–thankfully–we are not solely driven by our biology). Throw out as much science as you like, but it is a MORAL interpretation that our JOB is to protect that embryo or fetus. As living creatures, our only true biological JOB is to protect ourselves.
Oh, and, Lauralee, it would probably be a good idea to give credit where credit is due when you cut and past huge chunks of other people’s words. Otherwise, we would be led to believe that those words are yours.
That’s all I’m going to say on the matter. Except…
Sarah Palin is an idiot.
Sorry about the lack of footnotes. I honestly never expected anyone to believe I spouted off the evidence I submitted as thoughts from the top of my head.
–Alan Guttemacher Institute,
–Dr. Bernard Nathanson (who used to perform abortions and was one of the founders of NARAL)
–Do no harm coaltion of Americans for research ethics
–Steven Ertelt–LifeNews.com Editor
–Carolyn Gargaro –Roe V Wade – The Unconstitutional Decision
You don’t need to reference every idea. This is a blog, after all, not a classroom. But I think that if you take whole paragraphs word-for-word from someone else’s work, you should give that person credit.
As individuals it is indeed up to personal discretion to protect ourselves. The government of a civilised society and the laws it enacts are designed to protect everybody given the fact that not everyone respects life, or is capable of defending one’s own.
The reason Pro-lifers view abortion as THE issue is because it is the core of all problems concerning human life. If one cannot respect life at the most vulnerable state, certainly we cannot be expected to respect life at any other stage. We were warned long ago that legalized abortion would pave the way for legalized killing of disabled, elderly, terminally ill etc. No one believed it. But here we are with the so-called ‘right’ to die. Dying is an inevitibility, not a right, but there are laws on the books that currently make that legal claim.
Yes, I interpret, scientists interpret, lawmakers interpret. Many of our legal rights comes from these interpretations. I’m arguing that current laws do not reflect current medical science, and that Justice Blackmun’s interpretation of abortion as an issue of privacy was unconstitutional. Even Justice Ginsberg agrees Roe V Wade should have been decided differently, though she favors abortion rights.
There is a difference between spontaneous abortion or any situation where the death of a fertilized egg occurs naturally, and a pre-meditated attempt to destroy.
Accepting the idea that a fertilized egg is a person is not the same as saying that sperm and unfertilized eggs are people. Alone, neither contains the DNA of a new human being. Until they are joined, the DNA belongs to either the father or the mother. Afterward, yes, I’m saying personality traits constitute personhood.
No law will put an end to abortions, but a law recognizing their existence will restore the dignity that these children deserve and are currently denied. Women won’t be jailed for having abortions, but the doctors who perform them will likely be fined, possibly have their licenses suspended. They do take an oath after all to first, do no harm.
My fault for not placing quotations around the direct quotes. An obvious oversight on my part.
Anything concerning specific quotes should be noted. Thank you.
I do not disregard your opinions and interpretations by the way as irrelevant or something to be dismissed as emotional garbage.
Laws are are primarily created to keep order in society.
What is moral can be illegal and what is legal can be immoral. The presumption that all babies are a boy in your posts is funny. Protect him/himself. You are not acknowledging that another human being is involved separate from the child, one that cannot defend herself if she is mandated to carry out a pregnancy against her wishes. I hope you know that my post is not in anyway conflicting with –what I assume is your post to me. I did say the debate is not “what I can’t and I can not do” but that it is extended to two individuals—woman (one being) and child (one possible being.) You don’t become less of an individual because you created another individual–doesn’t diminish your right to individual choice. You don’t become less of an individual because someone created you–doesn’t diminish your right to individual choice. . This is why the abortion debate is so sticky— one is in constant need of acknowledging that in order to respect individual freedom (choice) you must acknowledge there are two individuals in need of freedom (choice). Anything less will only mean—when you mitigate one freedom(choice), the value in the freedom you argue for is weaker (choice). You will never have an ideal situation where both the choice of the mother and child is equal. So laws as they are meant to order and rule will put one over the other. The one that will do the least harm is probably what law will aim for. If all women are deprived of the choice and forced to carry a pregnancy– all women are trampled on/all kids are presumed safe. Nothing can mitigate the trampling on all the women–or “induced into labor.” If women are allowed to have a choice to carry a pregnancy– only the children of the women who chose to have the procedure are being trampled on. The trampling on the children can be mitigated by measures that lessen the chances for abortion
.
Science is only as good as what it can prove–there is a lot that it still has to yet prove. The body of what we know is little to what we don’t know. “Current abortion laws take their CUES from science” is not strong enough to say science says life (individual) definitively begins at conception. The fact that the advancement of technology has moved around on the exact point of viability shows that science–clinical and distant– can not definitively pin point the exact moment at which life (individual) happens. It just might change tomorrow. In science, life begins with a live sperm cell (carrying individual traits) and a live egg cell (carrying individual traits) that forms another live cell (carrying individual traits). Conception in science is a PROCESS. Conception in a dictionary is defined as a PROCESS. Viability(science)/Person hood(law) is a line in the sand. Science(viability) changes these “facts” according to different criteria or new research. Law(person hood) takes “cues.” Existence(religion) is constant belief–soul enters at that time. So in different ways–in legal ways, in social ways, in moral ways, in personal ways, in scientific ways people take up the side that speaks to them and they mold how the feel about it. The only difference is the presumption of who should lead the call–the focus on the woman or the child.
“Alone, neither contains the DNA of a new human being.”
Every sperm and every egg contains DNA of a new human being.
I’ll let you have the last copy and paste on this. Good night.
I agree with much of what you say. And the only part I copied and pasted was the post concerning the point about abortion being decided unconstuitutionally. That came directly from Carolyn Gargaro.
Calling the child a HE was out of pure laziness on my part. The His/her, he/she stuff takes more time to type. lol
True, science is only as good as what is known which was exactly my point. The current laws have not yet caught up with current science. Laws are often based on scientific interpretation.
Vialibity used to be 26 weeks, now is 20, but not all laws refl;ect that. African Americans were once deemed medically inferior, and laws reflected that. The laws of course have been altered in part because scientifically, we know better.
My wording of the sperm and unfertilized eggs vs fertilized eggs was indeed clumsy. See what happens when I don’t copy and paste? lol Thank you for pointing that out.
Each contains the DNA of that person, but until the two are joined the DNA of that newly formed offspring has not been created. Oh sh*t, that sounds even worse. lol
As you stated very wisely, this issue is a sticky one and I don’t believe will ever be agreed upon. I think we can agree that much needs to be done not only to reduce the number of abortions, but to reach out to the thousands who struggle raising the children they chose to have. Your points were all fairly and intelligently expressed. I think everyone appreciates that.
@ Lauralee: you said: “And yes, I oppose the death penalty, any form of torture, or pre-emptive war. We don’t have the right to arbitrarily kill ANY innocent, defenseless human being. In my view, the death penalty is revenge, not justice and we risk ending the lives of people later found to be innocent. It doesn’t erase the crime or the pain it caused. anyway. It doesn’t really give the victim any satisfaction.”
So tell me then how do you, with a good conscience, vote Republican????
@jk: you rock! As a professor, I just cannot tolerate plagiarism of any sort, thanks for pointing out lauralee’s indiscretions.
Here in Chicago, I have a very close friend who works for a sexual health clinic. No woman has ever died or been injured due to a botched abortion, medical or surgical, in the last fifteen or so years of the clinic’s existence. Scientific data shows us that maternal mortality dropped significantly when abortion became legalized. It was estimated that pre Roe v. Wade, 5,000 to 10,000 women died each year of complications due to an illegal abortion. That from a University of California School of Public Health cited in a Rocky Mountain News article from April 24, 2007. It is not acceptable to sit back and watch these women die! We can all agree on the fact that they are alive, that they have families and people who love them. What we cannot agree on is when a zygote is alive, yet we are willing to overlook the rights of this woman who is undisputedly alive. We are willing to put her emotional and physical well being on the line for a zygote that may be a process or may be a life. And that is the reason such a large number of women consider this a women’s rights issue.
And, yes, a woman has her “life” after she has been raped. For a lot of rape victims, this is not much of a life. It is one filled with various emotional road blocks, and in some cases, pretty bad PTSD. I work with a lot of girls who have been raped and I still stand by my statement that forcing these girls to carryout one of the consesquences and reminders of their brutal attack (and it is brutal) is cruel and unusual punishment.
More women than you know have gotten abortions. Maybe some in your family, Maybe in your church. And it’s a hard personal decision. No one made it with ease, or without a lot of thought. And it is SO personal. I cannot stress that enough. I believe it is so much like the euthanasia argument, and it sickens me that it is so hyper politicized. You can cite whichever laws about personal property and all the tricky wording that is part of Roe V. Wade, these tough decisions that these girls’ make should not be exploited.
And those of us who are pro life, God bless you, and please focus on living your life that way and not trying to force other women to do the same. Instead we can work together on lowering abortions with proper sex education and access to contraception and birth control. We should not teach abstinence only and then act surprised when so many teens are pregnant.
Thanks, JoJo. I’m locked in the ivory tower, grading papers, just like you.
It seems to me that, in the end, Lauralee is pro-choice, since she understands that the whole thing is a “sticky issue” that “will never be agreed upon”. So, pro-choice, it is.
Sheesh, pardon my grammar at 8 am!
And Sarah Palin totally blows.
I support abortion. Yeah, I said it. The last thing this world needs is more disgusting humans.
“Each contains the DNA of that person, but until the two are joined the DNA of that newly formed offspring has not been created. Oh sh*t, that sounds even worse. lol”
@ Lauralee: it has nothing to do with you not copying and pasting. It has everything to do with science being a process. Your inability to place the DNA as belonging to the mother father or the child is why viability/personhood is a line in the sand. In science an egg and a sperm are both cells carrying DNA belonging to either the mother or the father AND they are cells carrying DNA belonging to a new person. I fully agree too– much needs to be done to reduce the number of abortions. I support all standard means aimed to reduce abortions. I also believe in reaching out to the thousands who struggle raising the children they chose to have, and the improvement of facilities that house children without a good home.
I respect your position and all who chimed in.