Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sarah Palin and Choice

Columnist Ruth Marcus writes today that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made an eloquent "case for choice at a right-to-life fundraising dinner" when she revealed that she twice momentarily considered having an abortion.

The column has generated a flood of comments containing impassioned arguments on a subject that remains one of the most divisive in the nation. There is also a strong
secondary comment stream on the fact that the abortion rate is as high as 90 percent if prenatal tests show the child will have Down syndrome. Some question why anyone would knowingly have a Down syndrome child, as Palin decided do to; others ask why would they not.

We hear the arguments about inadequate sex education for teenagers; inadequate support for the less fortunate, etc. Marcus concludes, "Abortion is a personal issue and a personal choice. The government has no business taking that difficult decision away from those who must live with the consequences."

dutchess2 wrote, "Well put! I do not understand the disconnect - none of us do - between Palin as she speaks, and what Palin seems to understand... Sarah Palin is too unintelligent, too unaware, too arrogant to even realize she made the case for choice."

But carlo4 said, "The usual pro-choice nonsense. Nobody is forced to keep a baby. If you don't want a baby just give it up for adoption. The fact that you are free not to raise the baby does not mean that you are free to kill her/him."

solsticebelle wrote, "...Ruth Marcus hit the nail on the head. Palin considered a choice she is determined to take away from every other woman. It's irrelevant whether she went through with it or not..."

And wesco1 said, "don't forget she can afford her choice; many can't."

chrisfox8 drew strong responses after asking, "What kind of woman would knowingly bear a Down's child? It'll be on constant medical care and die very early anyway. Ninety percent of woman faced with the same choice get an abortion..."

For example, asoders22 wrote, "Let's make this clear: A person with Down's syndrome can live a happy life. He/she can do a simple work and feel proud and satisfied by it, live in a apartment of her/his own in some kind of community, make friendships, be loved and show love for other people..."

tlusk58 said, "...as a person who works with the developmentaly disabled every day, I am quite shocked at the comments on here concerning persons with downs syndrone. There are gifts that all of us bring to the greater community and I have yet to meet a person with downs syndrone who didn't have a great deal of humanity to offer to the rest of us."

And ReaderBetsy wrote, "...90% of Downs syndrome fetuses are aborted. Maybe some of these abortions wouldn't happen if we backed women up in caring for special needs children. If conservatives hadn't stripped our society of the social insurance that would help families raise children, there might BE fewer abortions..."

AverageJane asked, "Mrs. Palin, How can you contemplate the "choice" yourself and yet condemn the people who make it? Listen I promise to stay out of your private life if you will please, please stay out of mine. Deal?"

Goodgrief67 wrote, "First of all, I respect that the author of this article kept her sanity and didn't go off slamming Palin like many in the media. And, if we were talking about the choice of a barber or what restaurant to eat at, she would have a point with the choice thing. But what I will never understand is why some people think it's okay for someone to choose whether or not they want to kill their child..."

Alyosha1 said, "...If infanticide were legal up to 1 year old, I bet you would have lots of people who chose it... Yet almost all of us would gasp in horror at the idea of letting people terminate their infants up to their first birthday. Why does the simple act of moving the infant's location (from inside the womb to outside the womb) make this huge moral difference for us?..."

tmaffolter wrote, "There is no point in perpetuating this so-called discussion. Radical evangelicals like Palin have a world view of morality and law that is utterly driven by their own--I would say peculiar--brand of Christianity...The story here is all about keeping her and her brethren from reaching a critical mass that allows them to impose their peculiar morality on the rest of us..."

wendystevens wrote, "Sarah Palin seems to be a bit of a hypocrite... She may indeed have made the right decision for her, but the very idea that she or anyone else can make that decision for anyone else is repugnant. Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor."

fabricmaven1 wrote, "...I wish people who claim to be pro-life would say they are pro-birth. Pr-birthers see no need for programs that would stop unintended pregnancies like real sex education not abstinence only, low cost access to birth control pills, condoms and morning after pills... Sarah Palin got to make a choice, choice implies options. Yet she would take that right from other women..."

kansasgal1 wrote, "...why after she had that fleeting moment and then decided she would have the child did she do an amniocentesis? Most folks only have one if they are thinking about abortion because the procedure itself might cause one or cause other problems. I smell a rat here..."

To which Pionono1 replied, "The amniocenteses is performed on pregnant women over 40 due to the higher risk of deformities... no rat here..."

WhiteRiver said, "Clever column, except it ignores the real issue at stake in abortion. Is the unborn child a human being or a mere object to be discarded at the whim of another? A civilized society doesn't give some people a choice to kill others."

WillSeattle wrote, "...I wish we'd just move on, like they did in Canada, where it's nobody's business what the woman and her doctor decide."

All comments on the Marcus column are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  April 20, 2009; 8:55 AM ET
Categories:  Abortion , Palin  | Tags: Abortion, Down syndrome, Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Readers Rain on Tax Protest Story
Next: Torture and Punishment

Comments

I always have to grimace when I read that "having an abortion as a form of birth control is wrong" because seriously, it's the women who have abortions as birth control who are too irresponsible to be having babies. Moreover, since even adoption takes the ability to act proactively and not just float along letting life happen to you, those pregnant idiots who decide to have the baby will not take the steps to give it up for adoption either. oh sure, they will talk about it, but their talk about adoption will have as much action and worth as their talk about birth control.

So unwanted children will be raised by women who are so out of control of their own lives they cannot even manage birth control. Yeah, that really works for society.

Posted by: RinOregon | April 24, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

When I became pregnant at ages 36 and 37, I did not have an amnio either time. My husband and I both together decided that we were having the babies anyway no matter what. I was fearful because I knew that amnios could instigate a natural abortion, even if that instance was rare. My older son (now 11) is high functioning autistic. My OB had been more concerned with my second pregnancy but I still didn't do the amnio. My younger son is "normal" , or, as we say in the handicapped world, "typical". It has been a struggle at times, but well worth it, but each child brings their parents their own struggles. The kid who is perfect at 7 can become a demon at 12. Or the perfect baby somewhere down the line becomes a very sick child. If, as a parent, you are not able to deal with a disability at birth, there is no guarantee there won't be a disability or catastrophic illness somewhere down the line. So don't have kids unless you're willing to deal with it whenever.

If our healthcare system was more set up to help families of kids with disabilities, if school systems were set up to better help educatue these kids, perhaps families wouldn't decide to abort because of the result of an amnio.

Posted by: baltimoremom | April 23, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

In twenty years, Sarah Palin's little Corky will be sucking of the public teet with free housing, food stamps, and gasp...welfare checks. Thanks for bringing another freeloader into the world!

Posted by: wiatrol | April 23, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

RE: arancia12:

" Find some scientific proof that a a blastocyst or an embryo is a human being. Where is the scientific proof of when a clump of cells becomes a human being with all the rights of a fully formed person?"

NO arancia12: The burdan of proof is on YOU, the detractor, to demonstrate this is NOT a life.

By your argument, we might as well kill the handicapped -- those without fully-formed limbs, brains, etc.

We KNOW the "clump of cells" will not become anything else BUT a human. Unless we have a moral standard by which we protect ALL life (no matter what stage of development) then it's open season on ALL life.

Your standard of life appears to be completely arbitrary and logically inconsistent.

Posted by: Gromit2 | April 22, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

The main thing I have thought about Palin's tendency to want to talk about the choices she and her daughter made is that she should not try to have it both ways. If, as she appears to believe, it should NOT be a choice, then she should stop congratulating herself for making it. It should just be a normal thing for her, not something to go around bragging about. The way she keeps patting herself on the back for it betrays the truth that she and even people in her circle know - that it really IS a choice, and one that is made every day even by professed pro-lifers. That many times the ones who are standing outside clinics picketing against abortion, are quietly taking advantage of it for themselves or their wives or daughters. THAT'S where the hypocrisy lies.

Posted by: catherine3 | April 21, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Every day, teenagers all over America consider stealing something. Apparently Ms. Marcus believes that this is a valid "choice" they are making.

Posted by: BinkyLover | April 21, 2009 8:52 AM | Report abuse

One or two things here don,t add up. ( 1 ) She made a choice, from what I understand as a politician she takes that right away from a woman, or a couple. 2 ) She stated that her husband did not even know. Could it be that the Governor has not told us other things????

Posted by: rutoft64 | April 20, 2009 10:12 PM | Report abuse

bevjims1 – I get the debate. I’m just making a point for pro-Downs. There’s a huge lack of education. I can’t tell you the number of people who assume that A) I’m a pro-lifer because I had my son after receiving a prenatal diagnosis, or B) I must have learned of the diagnosis at birth because why else would he be here.
walden1 - How nice of you to wish me well then insult me by telling me that I’m self-indulgent and immoral to have my child with Down syndrome. NOTE: He’s not a Downs child….he’s a CHILD who happens to have Downs.

Posted by: mph1215 | April 20, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The question hidden here behind all the comments but shamefully unstated is, "Is not the right to die even more important than the right to live?"

Without the right to take your own life, does the right to live mean anything, does life itself, its freedom, mean anything?

From the ancient Greeks until very recently people chucked unwanted girl babies or deformed babies off cliffs. This was not very "caring" in the modern sense of the word but it addressed the limits of what could be expected of a "life".

But this was no isolated from general morality about life: if Greeks or Romans would fail in public endeavors they would kill themselves. Aristotle, who still governs some of our deepest Western thinking, said, "An unexamined life is not worth living."

All this is for formed adults, which many of you commenting are not. God bless, the babies, keep them if you can but there is a lot more happening here that this abortion discussion leaves out, namely are we even conscious and educated enough to discuss the issue seriously.

Posted by: walden1 | April 20, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I find it incredible that rational people can not see the argument against abortion.
When is it okay to kill an innocent and defenseless human being?

I haven't seen the pro-choice crowd address this. They ignore the question, and accuse people like me of being against women's rights.

Posted by: sportbri | April 20, 2009 2:00 PM
__________________

Yes you have, Sportbri, you just haven't listened. Find some scientific proof that a a blastocyst or an embryo is a human being. Where is the scientific proof of when a clump of cells becomes a human being with all the rights of a fully formed person?

In your opinion, that begins at conception. It does not, in mine.

So whose rights take precedence when a woman becomes pregnant? Perhaps a woman should stay home and not drive, not work, not drink, not smoke, eat only healthy foods, and not even walk for fear of depriving this "person" of his or her rights.

Silly? You may think so but tell me, whose rights take precedence when a woman becomes pregnant? Will you press charges of depriving a person of their rights when a woman fails to eat what someone else thinks is healthy or fails to exercise, or gains too much weight, or doesn't go the doctor? After all, at conception this is a person with rights too. So whose rights take precedence?

The question has been answered by those who believe in the right to choose. You should pay attention.

Posted by: arancia12 | April 20, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Bravo MPH1215 for your comments. I wish you and your Downs child well. But forgive an old fashioned humanist for saying that your choice to have this child could be considered immoral and self-indulgent by others struggling human beings. Could be only. And could be with righteous indignation. What I'm saying is "could be" only. I hope you and your child have wonderful lives!

Posted by: walden1 | April 20, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

only a complete sociopath can think that you have a right to kill your children. i know, it's a fetus, not a human, hence it's easier to kill something if you don't consider it a human. that nazis did that. what's it like being a sociopath?

Posted by: scoran | April 20, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"Reading these posts is a painful reminder that there are many people who look at my son and think he shouldn’t have been brought into this world."
Posted by: mph1215

You and it seems many others have a complete misunderstanding of what pro-choice means. Its pro-choice, not pro-abortion. No one wants to force you to abort a Down's Syndrome or other baby. But they do want to protect your right to choose. If some medical professional tried to force you into an abortion you should complain loudly since it is your choice, not there's. Likewise, if any medical professional tried to force you into carrying the baby you should complain loudly. Medical professionals are there to offer medical advice, not personal advice. Its your choice. That is what "pro-lifers" want to take away from you, your choice, and make it their choice.

Posted by: bevjims1 | April 20, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Reading these posts is a painful reminder that there are many people who look at my son and think he shouldn’t have been brought into this world. There are many days I forget that my 2-year-old has Downs. I don’t look at him and see Downs, I see my son. He walks, he says some words, he knows sign language, he can swim, he can feed himself, he knows how to share his toys and he can act like any other terrible toddler. He’s more like other kids than he is different. He’s not disabled…it just takes him longer to learn things.

I made a simple choice – I just wanted to have a baby. I had an amnio only to confirm the diagnosis – not to decide if I was going to keep my son. It’s wasn’t about pro-life/pro-choice debate for me. I wanted to be a mother. I wanted confirmation so I could learn about Downs, make sure I had doctors lined up and meet other families who had taken the same journey as me. My son did need open heart surgery but he’s healthy now. He hasn’t drained us of our finances as one poster suggested – and we didn’t have a lot of money when he was born.

The biggest problem I faced after confirmation of the diagnosis is that lack of updated information about Down syndrome and the lack of support by OB/GYNs who are uneducated about Downs. The first question I was asked after getting my amnio results is “do you want to keep the baby?” No wonder the rate of abortions is so high. How about asking, “Are you aware that many people with Down syndrome graduate from high school, have jobs, get married and live independently?”

There is NO perfect child. Please remember that. Your child may not have Down syndrome, but you may be faced with challenges in his or her future. Thankfully, there’s no prenatal diagnosis for autism, cerebral palsy, ADHD, behavior problems or being a rude bratty kid, or we’d have no children on the play ground.

Posted by: mph1215 | April 20, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

We have no right to kill babies born or unborn.
Posted by: crochel

Do we have the right to kill adults, like criminals?

Do we have the right to force women carrying "babies", who for whatever reason do not want to carry them, to be forced to carry them? If so how far are you willing to go? Will you arrest women who seek abortions? Will you strap them to hospital beds to protect the rights of the unborn growing inside them? Which life, the unborn's or the mother's, do you consider to have more rights? And why is your decision more important than the woman's decision who is carrying the unborn?

Palin made a personal choice and if you feel she made a good choice then she is to be appreciated for the decision. But making good decisions for yourself is a far cry from forcing your good decisions on other people's lives through law, especially a part of people's lives as intimate as a pregnancy.

I wonder what Sarah would have chosen had Todd divorced her 6-months earlier and she lost the last election. No income, no husband and a Down Syndrome baby on the way. Having temptations when you are among the richest people in your state should tell Sarah that what was a difficult choice for her might be an impossible choice for others. But it seems she believes she can reflect her own personal choices on others in different circumstances. She supports pro-life laws because she can make pro-life decisions. She does not support anti-gay laws because she has friends who are gay. As expected, its all about Sarah and what she thinks other people should do, not what other people might think for themselves.

Posted by: bevjims1 | April 20, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"Palin’s argument regarding this last point is perhaps that society makes it easier than it should be to choose an abortion. But even this remains a pro-life rather than a pro-choice argument here."
Posted by: jtgemail

I tend to agree with your analysis. But how is that different from a Catholic telling a story to a room full of Catholics of going into a restaurant on a Friday night during Lent and the special was a favorite steak platter? I can see how the story would be audience appropriate since Catholics cannot eat meat on Fridays (in America anyway) during Lent and the story was about temptation. But its a different matter if the person's political position is that everyone should be forced to not eat meat on Friday during Lent because you think that is right.

If the christian-right wants to make abortion a sin I don't think many people would mind. But a law is a very different thing and laws based on religious doctrine are theocratic, not democratic.

I think it would have been more interesting to learn why Palin did not observe abstinence, as she promotes, after her 40th birthday to avoid having children since this baby was seemingly not planned. It would also have been nice to hear what Palin plans to give up or sacrifice in order to devote more time and resources to Trig. Her career is certainly not on the list of things she would sacrifice for her child. How many mothers would consider that a christian decision?

Posted by: bevjims1 | April 20, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

t was interesting to read the article “Palin’s personal choice”. However, I think it fails to interpret Palin’s words correctly, and it either represents an inadvertently unconscious or a blatantly deliberate eisegesis of the text.

Nowhere in the “contextualized quote” does Palin say that she “momentarily considered” having an abortion. Rather, she is saying how easy it would have been for her to have an abortion and that, at most, she was even tempted to do so, given the anonymity of her situation. She speaks of the “temptation” and not an outright, personal “consideration” of having an abortion, as the context shows later on where she explicitly uses the word “temptation.”
___
So let's just say that Palin was tempted to have an abortion. When she was tempted, she had the choice to have a legal abortion. If you don't think that means she "momentarily considered" having an abortion then have fun in the delusional world you build for yourself. She considered it, momentarily, after being tempted by it, but realized it was not for her for personal reasons. She just wants to make her personal reasons law.

For the rest of us, we understand that what Palin wants to do is to take away the legality of the temptation. She wants to make it illegal to make a choice that she could have made legally in her day. She even states herself that she was "tempted" with making the choice to have an abortion because she was anonymous at the time. WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!! Just indefensible all around.

If she gets her way it will mean that women in the future are tempted to have an abortion will have the choice to do so but it will be illegal, unregulated, and unsafe.

Posted by: Grant_x | April 20, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The logic that Marcus uses is extremely flawed. Because someone has 'considered' doing something is not the same as actually committing the act or subscribing to the belief. Palin considered killing her innocent unborn baby and ultimately decided she doesn't believe in murdering children. Her actions show she believes in love and life.

We can chose what to do with our own one life. But, the life of a baby belongs to that separate human being. We have no right to kill babies born or unborn.

Posted by: crochel | April 20, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

As mom to a 19-year old with Down Syndrome, I can tell you that life can be very difficult, very scary, and very painful for those afflicted with this disorder. True, some are lucky and have relatively mild disabilities resulting from DS, but others are not so lucky. I adopted my son when he was 3 and he is a loving and wonderfully sweet boy, but I grieve every day over the suffering and fear he has already endured and I worry over what will likely face him in future. He already has gone through 3 spinal fusion surgeries that left him with cerebral palsy, plus a year in excruciatingly painful halo traction which he was not able to understand. He was frightened to death for two straight years and I could do little but try to comfort him. He is lucky in that his heart is healthy, but if he lives much past 50, his chances of getting Alzheimer's are very high. Who will take care of him then? Who will sit with him and comfort him when he's afraid? Who will pay for his care when he requires 24-hour monitoring? I'm in my late 50s myself and am raising two other special needs children. I am not advocating aborting DS children, but I would never criticize a family who made that terrible decision. My son is the love of my life but if I could have spared him the suffering he has endured and likely will endure later, I don't know what I would have done. For me, I never had to make that choice. For women who do have to decide, we need to gin up a little compassion, no matter how the choice goes.

Posted by: pies2go | April 20, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I find it incredible that rational people can not see the argument against abortion.
When is it okay to kill an innocent and defenseless human being?

I haven't seen the pro-choice crowd address this. They ignore the question, and accuse people like me of being against women's rights.

Posted by: sportbri | April 20, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse


The only valid consideration in the question of whether to have an abortion or not is that this question is between a woman, her doctor and in some cases, her minister.

Everyone else, including the government, should mind their own business.

If Palin's Down's child helps just one child's family get the medical and financial support he or she needs, then all this folderol would be worth it. The fact it, the radical right only cares about babies before they are born. They could care less about what happens later to that kid or that kid's family. Hypocrites.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | April 20, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Could somebody explain to me why killing innocent people is okay? If I stab a pregnant woman in the stomach, does that make me an Involuntary Aborter, or a Murderer?
I think the latter.

Posted by: sportbri | April 20, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"Ask yourselves just why is the incidence increasing in a genetic disorder and what is the root cause of that increase."

When I was a teen-ager, 27 was considered the beginning of being "too old" to have a baby. Now, some women, mostly by choice, are putting off starting families, while others think they are too old already to get pregnant, which probably was Palin's belief. She should be more informed; a woman can get pregnant during menopause, because menopause isn't sterilizing as soon as it starts; it's a years-long process.
The Down syndrome defect has always been a possibility in older women.

Posted by: bryony1 | April 20, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

It was interesting to read the article “Palin’s personal choice”. However, I think it fails to interpret Palin’s words correctly, and it either represents an inadvertently unconscious or a blatantly deliberate eisegesis of the text.

Nowhere in the “contextualized quote” does Palin say that she “momentarily considered” having an abortion. Rather, she is saying how easy it would have been for her to have an abortion and that, at most, she was even tempted to do so, given the anonymity of her situation. She speaks of the “temptation” and not an outright, personal “consideration” of having an abortion, as the context shows later on where she explicitly uses the word “temptation.”

A parallel example that comes to mind, albeit somewhat removed from a modern secular society’s interest, is a story of St. Therese on her deathbed wherein she suffered some extreme bodily pains due to her advanced case of Tuberculosis. St. Therese is recorded as having related to her sister her reflection upon how easy it would be to commit suicide in such cases (as hers) by taking an overdose of medication which a caretaker had inadvertently left out on the sick person’s nightstand. She even warns caretakers not to do so (i.e., leave medication out) in such circumstances. [The context here is that someone perhaps had indeed left medication on St. Therese’s nightstand.] In interpreting Therese’s comment, most scholars agree that hers was a reflection on human nature and the realization perhaps of her own personal temptation, rather than of St. Therese’s making a case for suicide or euthanasia or even actually considering choosing either herself.

Of course, it today’s society the lines are often blurred between temptation and sin (the former never being the latter—even Christ was tempted) and between understanding human nature and right moral decision, that is to say, if modern society even understands or acknowledges any of these things.

Regardless of where one may stand on the abortion debate, it seems clear to me that the lengthy and contextualized words of Palin (compliments to the author for keeping the context) nonetheless do not refer to Palin’s personal or momentary choice to have an abortion but rather Palin’s reflection on human nature (isn’t this the point of her speech?) and her even being tempted into the choice given her circumstances and the ease of such a decision in the circumstances. Palin’s argument regarding this last point is perhaps that society makes it easier than it should be to choose an abortion. But even this remains a pro-life rather than a pro-choice argument here.

Posted by: jtgemail | April 20, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

NeverLeft Stated: "How is it that we have fallen so far as a society that we know consider it simply a choice as to whether another human being is allowed to continue to live or not?
That is not a choice that any person has the right to make."
-----------------------
How is it that, as a self-identified member of the sane few, you still come to the conclusion that it is ok to tell another human being what she can and can't do with her own body? Oh ye of such a high-minded social perspective, if true progress and advancement on this issue is your goal, an acknowledgment of the issue's complexity would be quite prudent.

Posted by: danof | April 20, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Down' Syndrome, and indeed many genetic disorders, can encompass a wide spectrum of disability. Whatever his level of disability, the Palin baby will never lack for attention, even if much of it comes from hired help.

I hurt for the parents whose children are most disabled--who will never be able to live in even a group home--the parents who live with the fear of "what will happen when I am gone?" Parents, unlike Sarah Palin, who do not have plenty of people to assist with the care of the child, who are unable to find respite care, or who find the needs of that child plunge them from a comfortable financial picture into poverty and dependency.

Posted by: catlady1 | April 20, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

So carlo4 said, "The usual pro-choice nonsense. Nobody is forced to keep a baby," did he? Does he think that nine months of pregnancy, with its inherent dangers, its sickness, the pain it causes in the final months, is just that simple?
If one could pluck out an embryo as if it were a hangnail, maybe what he says would make some sense. But he has no idea of how arduous and tedious a pregnancy is, or of the number of women who die in childbirth or infant mortality.
If men had to bear babies, abortion laws would have been in effect since abortion was invented.

Posted by: bryony1 | April 20, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

women can have any kind of kid they want. Just look at what happened when obammy's mother had him........the baby daddy took one look at the purple lipped, large eared freak and took off.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | April 20, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

How is it that we have fallen so far as a society that we know consider it simply a choice as to whether another human being is allowed to continue to live or not?
That is not a choice that any person has the right to make.
Posted by: NeverLeft

Yet republicans like Palin favor the death penalty with republican states like Texas even executing the mentally disabled. Someone must think they have a right to that choice. Funny how its the same people who think they have a right to tell everyone else what their choices must be.

Posted by: bevjims1 | April 20, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

As Rodney King might say: "Can't we all just get along?" Just let people who want babies brought into this world foster that and those who don't can just go crawl in a hole where they belong.

Posted by: nickthimmeschearthlinknet | April 20, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

But carlo4 said, "The usual pro-choice nonsense. Nobody is forced to keep a baby. If you don't want a baby just give it up for adoption. The fact that you are free not to raise the baby does not mean that you are free to kill her/him."

It seems to me that since Palin entered the national scene as vp selection by McCain abortion has been a strong issue. It seems to me that not enough has been said about the alternative adoption.

Although I am pro-life I dislike the fact that many pro-lifers want to set strong boundaries that restrict abortion to the life of the mother only. There are other valid factors to consider besides that.

I truly believe that it should be between the mother and her doctor but with certain restraints. Having an abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. Women should be encouraged to think before they act especially prior to putting themselves in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy. That form of birth control should be discouraged at all costs.

Posted by: eashley12 | April 20, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Why is no one asking Palin why, at her age and the possibility of pregnancy at 44, did she not do what she expected her daughter to do, practice abstinence? The parallel of mom at 44 ending up pregnant and Britol at 17 ending up pregnant is just so glaring. Had each practiced what Sarah preaches, neither would have had a "surprise" baby. I hope Sarah now understands that abstinence, for anyone, is not the answer to unwanted pregnancies. She should be able to see that as well as Russia from her own house.

And the only reason for an amniocentisis is to determine if the baby has an abnormality and thus provide information for a decision on an abortion while in the first trimester. If Sarah never intended to have an abortion she would have waved the amnio. But she made the appointment and had it done. Had laws she supports been in place, no amnio would have been allowed. She would have carried that child to term or until she died, at gunpoint if necessary.

Posted by: bevjims1 | April 20, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

what sara palin has done is to personalize a complex issue.
now, every time someone looks at her, all they see is a soap opera figure who is best served by spending her afternoons on Opra or "The View" telling her personal story.
Having bared her whole life for the media, it will be impossible for anyone to take her seriously as a candidate since as a leader, one would want her to be able to make choices based on logic, not emotion.

what she has also proven is that she needs media attention and will do everything in her power to get it.

Posted by: charlesjacksonnyc | April 20, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a Republican. Think everything they say and opinions offered are correct, then turn around and contradict themselves with the next movement of the tongue. Palin would have been the most scariest thing to ever hold the Vice-Presidents position, especially with McCain age. I would never vote for Palin and the reason why is not because shes a woman. My reason is because on World events, Presidential duties, and basically many other things she is a Political IDIOT! I hope the Republicans put her on the ballots for the next 20 years so that the Democrats will stay in Office forever!

Posted by: CashNDC | April 20, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

You all are arguing the after effects of the problem, not the prevention, and I do not mean abstinence! Ask yourselves just why is the incidence increasing in a genetic disorder and what is the root cause of that increase. Ask those questions and the answers will resolve the argument. We must go to the source to end this debate and it should be decided by those affected and not by all the rest of us who do not have to live with the consequences of the choice made. One would do well to clean up their own back yard before forcing others to live in the same mess.

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | April 20, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

As a follow up to Alyosha1's thought experiment, it actually has been the case that infanticide has been legal for most of human history, and yes, it has been widely practiced in nearly every civilization in recorded human history.

I haven't found a book devoted to the history of infanticide, but Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on that cites from references to infanticide from various histories and anthologies.

Posted by: joshuaborn | April 20, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm a man. Who cares about Sarah Palin's choice... Sarah Palin's business is HER business...until she breaks the law. Don't we all just wish she would mind her own business...also. Its kinda...the American way.

Palin-Steele in 2016!

LoL

Posted by: free-donny | April 20, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

As a pro-choice woman, I think the horrifying percentage of over 90% of babies with Down syndrome being aborted should be the issue. People do this based on misinformation and poor guidance from their doctors, not to mention the overall terrible attitude in our society toward people with this genetic disorder. It is not, as Ms. Marcus writes, a severe abnormality. Most of the negative comments toward this community of people are surely made mostly by people who have never had personal contact with someone who has Down syndrome. My nearly 12-year old son has it, and he hasn't met a person yet who didn't fall for him immediately (except some medical doctors, of course). Please do your research before criticizing these people. Check out websites such as the National Down Syndrome Society for accurate facts.

Posted by: heidijt | April 20, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

How is it that we have fallen so far as a society that we know consider it simply a choice as to whether another human being is allowed to continue to live or not?

That is not a choice that any person has the right to make.

THAT was Sarah's message.

Posted by: NeverLeft | April 20, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse


Palin is precisely like a movie star...

she is pretty, has presence, but no brains at all.
Simply not smart enough to see the
mutually exclusive statements.

Doesn't know she's uninformed. She is a mouth off celebrity. THIS for president?

Posted by: whistling | April 20, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that if Palin really really really knows that abortion is wrong and is totally against her personal and religious beliefs, then she never would have had that fleeting moment or two in the first place.

And the comment no one would have to know...what about poor Todd? She shows up not pregnant and he isn't supposed to notice?

Which leaves me with my original opinion as an OB nurse and educator: she was never pregnant in the first place. Yes, there are a bunch of rats here.

Posted by: kathleenrjohnson | April 20, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Some of us who want justice for the very young have figured out that 'choice' is not our enemy. Sarah Palin did indeed make the case for choice. She also made the case for life. It's only because people on both 'sides' have worked so hard to demonize each other that we perceive these goals to be in opposition.

Little by little we are changing the conversation away from "May a woman get an abortion?" to "Should a woman get an abortion?" (The new question assumes that the old question has been answered in the affirmative).

Instead of Pro-Lifers seeking to prohibit abortion we ought to be awakening women (and men as well) to the fact that parental responsibilities begin before birth, and to the fact that parental responsibilities include responsibility for a child who is sick or handicapped. Sarah Palin's personal testimony is part of this awakening process.

Over the years the Pro-Life movement has made little success at restricting access to abortion, but it has done a great job at communicating with women who have a choice to make. This is evidenced by the fact that the abortion rate has declined from 29.4 abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age in 1980 to 19.4 currently.

Let's keep up the good work!

Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Posted by: PaulBradford | April 20, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I would urge Sarah Palin and all those who agree with her to be more specific about what they are advocating--government control of every human uterous.

Posted by: brocks51 | April 20, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company