Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sarah Palin wants to deny choice

My colleague Jonathan Capehart forgets one thing in his effort to find common ground with Sarah Palin: She doesn’t want to give women a choice. In the argument that Capehart finds so intriguing, Palin presents pro-choice feminists as insidious forces suggesting to pregnant women -- and girls -- that “you’re not capable” of handling both an education and a baby, a job and motherhood. Anti-abortion Mama Grizzlies, by contrast, are "empowering women by offering them a real choice."

What real choice would that be? When Palin found herself unintentionally pregnant, she faced a choice -- one that remains available to her and that she says she fleetingly considered. Later in that pregnancy, when an amniocentesis test came back abnormal, Palin faced a choice -- that she again fleetingly considered. Palin made the correct choice for her. But she would deny other women the right to engage in a similar decision-making process. I respect the convictions of those who believe that abortion is the taking of a human life and believe that it should therefore be outlawed. To cast this removal of decision-making as a matter of feminist empowerment, however, is Orwellian.

“Am I wrong?” Capehart asks at the end of his post.

Jonathan, you betcha.

By Ruth Marcus  | May 16, 2010; 7:44 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Elena Kagan's unhelpful supporters
Next: Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle should sign civil unions bill

Comments

What she was saying is that probably for the first time in her life she knew why someone would consider having an abortion. I mean, with four other kids, a very time-consuming and high-profile job, a husband that works hundreds of miles away and is gone every other week, and then finding out that the kid would have Down Syndrome... If anyone had an "excuse" to get an abortion, she did. The circumstances were just so "inconvenient" that it crossed her mind.

But for a pro-life person, that's all that it would ever do. You would never seriously consider abortion because you believe it to be murder. It's not "your body," it's someone else's and you have no right to kill the other life that's inside of you, no matter how inconvenient it might be.

She's trying to reach out by saying that she understands the thought process. In no way whatsoever does this justify abortion to her.

If you believe, as pro-lifers do, that the child in the womb is every bit a unique individual who deserves to live, who has the right to live, then abortion is flat-out, cold-blooded murder. And you do not get to choose whether or not you want to murder someone.

I can't choose to kill my neighbor. Killing a child ten seconds after it's out of the womb would be called infantacide. Yet somehow it's acceptable to kill it when it's still separated from the outside world by a few inches of fluid and skin.

We know intrinsically that we're talking about human beings here. All the rest is just excuses to justify to ourselves the evil that men do.

What about the child's choice in the matter? Talk about not being able to choose what you want for your own body.

Posted by: Uffda52222 | May 16, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

She's also working within the framework that already exists. Right now, you are free to choose. Therefore she speaks in that language. Choose life.

She's saying, I know what it's like to face difficult circumstances. But I discovered that I was strong enough to get through them and strong enough to give this child a chance and I have never regretted it. You're strong enough too.

Posted by: Uffda52222 | May 16, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

She's also working within the framework that already exists. Right now, you are free to choose. Therefore she speaks in that language. Choose life.

She's saying, I know what it's like to face difficult circumstances. But I discovered that I was strong enough to get through them and strong enough to give this child a chance and I have never regretted it. You're strong enough too.

Posted by: Uffda52222 | May 16, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post. :)

Posted by: Uffda52222 | May 16, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Legal abortion allows young people to be killed without protection from the homicide laws if they haven't been born yet. It allows some people, therefore, to choose to ignore the rights of others, the same way the "peculiar institution" of slavery gave white people the ability to ignore the rights of those whose skin was dark.

It is those who oppose legal abortion who are the true defenders of equal rights.

Posted by: quadibloc | May 16, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Palin is doing exactly what she did when she ran for mayor of Wasilla. She is trying to move abortion, guns and God to the forefront.
There are many women who would never choose abortion but they Do Not want to lose that right.

Palin is campaigning now for Pres. She doesn't want healthcare, yet she wants victims of incest/rape to have babies--and no healthcare. She wants to take away a woman's right to choose, do away with Medicare with vouchers, privatize Social Security.

She supports crisis pregnancy centers --especially Care Net-- that does not promote or provide contraception but they should promote adoption through their connections. Adoption is profitable. Contraception isn't.

Anything for profit for Palin including promoting guns to keep the prisons full and keep the prison lobbyists busy. Big business--look it up if you don't believe.

Palin is all about making money.

Posted by: socialjusticechristian | May 16, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Yet I cannot fathom why those who care so much about lives before birth, care so little about them after birth.

Posted by: kejia32 | May 16, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

When will this holocaust come to an end? 50 million childern hacked from their mothers bellies and these fossilized feminist want even more blood sacrificed to their false gods. The day is fast approaching when this nation will see the judgement of God poured out on it.

Posted by: wjj_johnson | May 16, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a bad joke, suitable for the Sunday morning comics. We are in it deep if the GOP is taking this person seriously.

I, myself, would prefer Anglina Jolie. Beautiful, intelligent, has babies, adopts others, and lives with Brad Pitt.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 17, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

You are truly drawing the loon crowd now days..YIKES!! This "wjj_johnson" clown is one of the more excessive morons we've seen lately..but that's not very surprising when the subject is the alaskan swag-hag and her merry band of key-stroking, clearly un-educated, over-paid staff...


Posted by: rbaldwin2 | May 17, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

For many years I considered myself a pro-choice feminist. But the direction of that movement over the past few years to accept abortions at nearly any stage of a pregnancy, to support partial birth abortions, and to not promote responsible birth control because abortion was the fall-back; has led me to be less supportive of abortion. I have never been comfortable with abortions after 20-24 weeks. As neonatal successes have increased and fetuses are delivered earlier than one would expected one to have survived, some of us have started to question the term "pro-choice" which seems to really mean "pro-abortion."

If you look at the national polls, more people are moving away from abortion on demand for the purpose of birth control. Ultrasound photos have made that little mass of tissue that used to be so easily disposed into the potential of a living infant.

Choice obviously means different things to different people. Some of us have grown unwilling to accept abortion at any stage as a reasonable "choice."

Posted by: annetta3 | May 17, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Liberals love abortion. It has been the the center of the center of their ideology for 30 years dividing America making the life of an unborn child a women's rights issue rather than the right of human life to exist. It is the same dehumanizing thinking that supports Kevorkian thinking on euthanasia.

The well funded Planned Parenthood is as insidious as ACORN in their acquisition of money. Despite legally being classified as a non-profit organization, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the government in order to carry out its operations, including over 300,000 abortions each year.

Posted by: 2009frank | May 17, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Each day, 30,000 children under five years of age die as a direct consequence of the poverty in which they live. In addition, each minute, a woman dies due to complications associated with pregnancy, and for every such death, twenty more women suffer a pregnancy-related injury. I find it odd that no member of the anti-choice crowd ever mentions these facts when discussing the sanctity of human life. It seems that those who wish to deny others the right of choice do so because they wish to control others, not because they care about life. If they did, statistics such as those cited above would be a matter of history, not reflective of the present.

Furthermore, I would encourage anyone who thinks that every pregnancy should come to term, regardless of the desires of the mother, to consider the consequences of children being raised by those who do not really want them, or are unable or unwilling to devote sufficient resources and time to the upbringing of their offspring. Many of the problems in our society stem from such children, for they are very likely to grow up to be criminals and sociopaths.

Bottom line: if you wish to make your own choices, allow others to make theirs. Who really wants to inject government into the most intimate aspects of Americans' personal lives? Sure sounds like a bad idea to me!

Posted by: jneps | May 17, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Didn't we settle all this years ago and gave women a choice?!! Why must we beat our chests on this subject again?! I personally would not have an abortion but it is up to the individual woman and her God to make that choice. I don't need Sister Sarah to pontificate and lecture me about morals. Who cares what she thinks!

Posted by: sharronkm | May 17, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

People constantly site the poll that people are moving away from abortion. That may be true, but people also do not want the right taken away.

Also, if Palin cares so much about children, why is she so far away from hers? Why does she not work where she can go home at night and see them? Why does she spend weeks at a time away from them? She could work in Alaska. She has enough money that she doesn't have to speak so often and so far away. That is a Choice she makes.

I applaud the women who have made the choices to pursue their dreams outside of the home , or as a stay at home, who put their children's emotional welfare at the forefront and spend valuable and needed time with their children and make the choices to do it.

Parents get one shot at being a parent-- and many shots at regret.

Posted by: socialjusticechristian | May 17, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Too funny, Marcus' opinion piece was EXACTLY my first thought when I read Palins' comments.

Uffda52222, say what you will about Palin making a tought decision with a demanding job etc. but several points:

1) Palin HAD A CHOICE! She decided to keep the child which was the right decision for her. But many people DON'T have dual incomes nor do they have high paying jobs ... having that fifth down syndrom child when you earn $25K or $30K a year may be a much harder decision that Palin ever had to make!

2) Why is Palin so dead set on jaming her point of view down my throat? This country was founded on freedom of choice and on religious rights meaning that people have a choice regarding their religious beliefs. Hindu's believe that eating cattle is wrong; Jews and Arabs believe that eating pork is wrong, should we all stop eating beef and pork? No, we leave it up to the Hindu, Jews and Arabs to not eat beef and pork. More importantly for me; Quakers believe that all life is sacred and that we believe capital punishment should never occur yet states have capital punishment ... don't see Quakers becoming militant about capital punishment we just think you folk on the religious right are mental migets.

The point being ... it's your RELIGIOUS BELIEF Palin that life happens at conception ... we as a country are suppose to be open minded enough to accomodate many different beliefs but apparently you think your better and have greater entitlements than everyone else ...

Jaming your views down my throat is ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT GETTING INTO MY BUSINESS it's un-republican and certainly against libertarian creed ... who do you think you are Palin?

Posted by: fjt123 | May 17, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Too funny, Marcus' opinion piece was EXACTLY my first thought when I read Palins' comments.

Uffda52222, say what you will about Palin making a tought decision with a demanding job etc. but several points:

1) Palin HAD A CHOICE! She decided to keep the child which was the right decision for her. But many people DON'T have dual incomes nor do they have high paying jobs ... having that fifth down syndrom child when you earn $25K or $30K a year may be a much harder decision that Palin ever had to make!

2) Why is Palin so dead set on jaming her point of view down my throat? This country was founded on freedom of choice and on religious rights meaning that people have a choice regarding their religious beliefs. Hindu's believe that eating cattle is wrong; Jews and Arabs believe that eating pork is wrong, should we all stop eating beef and pork? No, we leave it up to the Hindu, Jews and Arabs to not eat beef and pork. More importantly for me; Quakers believe that all life is sacred and that we believe capital punishment should never occur yet states have capital punishment ... don't see Quakers becoming militant about capital punishment we just think you folk on the religious right are mental migets.

The point being ... it's your RELIGIOUS BELIEF Palin that life happens at conception ... we as a country are suppose to be open minded enough to accomodate many different beliefs but apparently you think your better and have greater entitlements than everyone else ...

Jaming your views down my throat is ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT GETTING INTO MY BUSINESS it's un-republican and certainly against libertarian creed ... who do you think you are Palin?

Posted by: fjt123 | May 17, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Too funny, Marcus' opinion piece was EXACTLY my first thought when I read Palins' comments.

Uffda52222, say what you will about Palin making a tought decision with a demanding job etc. but several points:

1) Palin HAD A CHOICE! She decided to keep the child which was the right decision for her. But many people DON'T have dual incomes nor do they have high paying jobs ... having that fifth down syndrom child when you earn $25K or $30K a year may be a much harder decision that Palin ever had to make!

2) Why is Palin so dead set on jaming her point of view down my throat? This country was founded on freedom of choice and on religious rights meaning that people have a choice regarding their religious beliefs. Hindu's believe that eating cattle is wrong; Jews and Arabs believe that eating pork is wrong, should we all stop eating beef and pork? No, we leave it up to the Hindu, Jews and Arabs to not eat beef and pork. More importantly for me; Quakers believe that all life is sacred and that we believe capital punishment should never occur yet states have capital punishment ... don't see Quakers becoming militant about capital punishment we just think you folk on the religious right are mental migets.

The point being ... it's your RELIGIOUS BELIEF Palin that life happens at conception ... we as a country are suppose to be open minded enough to accomodate many different beliefs but apparently you think your better and have greater entitlements than everyone else ...

Jaming your views down my throat is ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT GETTING INTO MY BUSINESS it's un-republican and certainly against libertarian creed ... who do you think you are Palin?

Posted by: fjt123 | May 17, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Too funny, Marcus' opinion piece was EXACTLY my first thought when I read Palins' comments.

Uffda52222, say what you will about Palin making a tought decision with a demanding job etc. but several points:

1) Palin HAD A CHOICE! She decided to keep the child which was the right decision for her. But many people DON'T have dual incomes nor do they have high paying jobs ... having that fifth down syndrom child when you earn $25K or $30K a year may be a much harder decision that Palin ever had to make!

2) Why is Palin so dead set on jaming her point of view down my throat? This country was founded on freedom of choice and on religious rights meaning that people have a choice regarding their religious beliefs. Hindu's believe that eating cattle is wrong; Jews and Arabs believe that eating pork is wrong, should we all stop eating beef and pork? No, we leave it up to the Hindu, Jews and Arabs to not eat beef and pork. More importantly for me; Quakers believe that all life is sacred and that we believe capital punishment should never occur yet states have capital punishment ... don't see Quakers becoming militant about capital punishment we just think you folk on the religious right are mental migets.

The point being ... it's your RELIGIOUS BELIEF Palin that life happens at conception ... we as a country are suppose to be open minded enough to accomodate many different beliefs but apparently you think your better and have greater entitlements than everyone else ...

Jaming your views down my throat is ALL ABOUT GOVERNMENT GETTING INTO MY BUSINESS it's un-republican and certainly against libertarian creed ... who do you think you are Palin?

Posted by: fjt123 | May 17, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Too funny, Marcus' opinion piece was EXACTLY my first thought when I read Palins' comments.

Uffda52222, say what you will about Palin making a tought decision with a demanding job etc. but several points:

1) Palin HAD A CHOICE! She decided to keep the child which was the right decision for her. But many people DON'T have dual incomes nor do they have high paying jobs ... having that fifth down syndrom child when you earn $25K or $30K a year may be a much harder decision that Palin ever had to make!

2) Why is Palin so dead set on jaming her point of view down my throat? This country was founded on freedom of choice and on religious rights meaning that people have a choice regarding their religious beliefs. Hindu's believe that eating cattle is wrong; Jews and Arabs believe that eating pork is wrong. More importantly for me; Quakers believe that all life is sacred and that we believe capital punishment should never occur.

The point being ... it's your RELIGIOUS BELIEF Palin that life happens at conception ... we as a country are suppose to be open minded enough to accomodate many different beliefs but apparently you think your better and have greater entitlements than everyone else ...

Posted by: fjt123 | May 17, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is not against free choice. She is against women's organizations who want to force abortions on young women in the name of free choice - and there are lots of them.

Palin had a choice to abort Trig, or to carry him to term when she discovered he had Downs. She decided to permit him to live, yet women's groups have continually criticized her since for exercising her choice and not aborting him.

Free choice is about just that. FREE CHOICE. Making an informed choice, not permitting feminist organizations to make that choice for you.

Considering that Palin is not a candidate for any office today, what is this column really about? It appears to me to be just one more article that is attempting to poison people against Palin in the event that she chooses to run for anything.

Posted by: mike85 | May 17, 2010 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Palin is an opportunistic joke. That would be J.O.K.E.

What she does or does not "think" about choice or anything else belongs in the Enquirer, to which those with her perspicacity and geopolitical expertise gravitate when waiting at the checkout line of their local supermarkets.

A cry from the heart: Please bar this creature from WaPo. She is an embarrassment to Americans and others of the human persuasion.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 17, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

I second this: "Yet I cannot fathom why those who care so much about lives before birth, care so little about them after birth."

... especially if they happen to be the babies of illegal immigrants.

Posted by: paris1969 | May 17, 2010 1:46 AM | Report abuse

to Mike85:
There are NO women's organizations that forc abortions on young women. All of the women's organizations I know of, including Planned Parenthood, which is not a "women's" organization per se, advocate CHOICE for young women who find themselves pregnant, and STRONGLY advocate the use of birth control so that they do not find themselves in the unfortunate situation of an unplanned pregnancy. No one is trying to poison people against Palin - anyone with a brain knows she is an under-educated moron who has taken up way more than her 15 minutes of fame. The sooner she fades from the national scene, the better off our country will be.

Posted by: yeastie2 | May 17, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Legal abortion allows young people to be killed without protection from the homicide laws if they haven't been born yet. It allows some people, therefore, to choose to ignore the rights of others, the same way the "peculiar institution" of slavery gave white people the ability to ignore the rights of those whose skin was dark.

It is those who oppose legal abortion who are the true defenders of equal rights.
****************************************

Really?
You're giving babies the right to vote?
To choose their own schools?
A vote on what's for dinner?
Do the children tell the parents what to do?

Can a child, with all of his/her "rights" you've generously given them choose to have an abortion without telling their parents?

Posted by: kreator6996 | May 17, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

1) Palin HAD A CHOICE! She decided to keep the child which was the right decision for her. But many people DON'T have dual incomes nor do they have high paying jobs ... having that fifth down syndrom child when you earn $25K or $30K a year may be a much harder decision that Palin ever had to make!
*******************************************

Don't have sex then.
Pretty easy choice.
If you have 4 kids and dont want another, stop f***ing.

Posted by: kreator6996 | May 17, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

May I point out that Palin had the choice of not actually taking care of the child she kept. While young poor mothers have no real chance to "balance motherhood and education/job", especially if they already have several kids, Palin can do it because she can afford help - a LOT of help.

She can travel, hold speeches, write books - she is not locked up in a small apartment with five children and too little money to even take the next step.

Then, there is also the possibility the pregnant woman feels this is not the right time, or the right father. Then, a very early abortion (maybe with just a pill starting the menstruation cycle again) is something you would be hard pressed to call "taking a human life".

If you do, you certainly open yourself to the suspicion that you are more into controling women's life than caring for babies. Especially if you have no problems with already born kids being under-nourished and not treated by doctors when sick because you don't want SOCIALISATION, you want to keep your dollars to yourself, and that's more important to you.

Early abortions should be free of charge, and those mothers electing to go on with the pregnancy should receive support. The children - everyone's children - are the future.

Palin is not a good thinker,and her empathy selective.

As for "not f***ing", that mantra - as you well know - is not working.

Posted by: asoders22 | May 17, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Posted by: inedal | May 17, 2010 5:11 AM | Report abuse

Palin is an idiot. I don't know that she ever has anything but a fleeting thought. She'd readily create more suffering in the world without much thought about it.

Posted by: Nymous | May 17, 2010 5:28 AM | Report abuse

I'm throughly sick of right wing religious radicals trying to have their way about something they know very little about, and really care very little about either. American money paid for millions of abortions in China last year alone, by exactly the people who hate abortion so much.

Also, they're always the ones blowing people up and killing people. All of America's most deadly home grown terrorists come from this crowd of freaks.

Posted by: Nymous | May 17, 2010 5:34 AM | Report abuse

It's not all that difficult. For the sake of argument, assume there is no God (this assumption has the virtue of being likely). Next decide at which point in its development a fetus should be accorded the rights of a human being by law. Before that time, the woman has all the rights, after that time, the fetus gains more rights, assuredly acquiring full human status at some point at or about the third trimester. Viability of the fetus might be a reasonable guide. Not all that difficult.

Posted by: ChampsEleves | May 17, 2010 6:10 AM | Report abuse

I think if someone has strong feelings about abortion being murder, and would never, ever consider it, even with a special needs child that will know pain and disability, short life and painful death, they need to follow their beliefs... but do so at their own cost. If they can afford the 24/7 nursing, care, therapy, hospitalization, Drs, nurses, specialists... then have at it. Make sure you have more kids late in life to care for one that might live beyond your own life time to take care of it.

Don't even THINK about crawling up on your high horse about 'life' and then expect ME to pay the costs of keeping it alive so you can buy your way into heaven with my money.

Posted by: dutchess2 | May 17, 2010 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Uffda52222

Nahhhh

She's telling you she had a choice, but she doesn't want you to have one.

Why don't you take a good look... she's all over the country, her kids cannot possibly be in school, they are hauled along to take care of the special needs kid so she can hawk books and potty mouth at conventions for money.

Who do you, or she, think she's fooling?

What does she owe her normal children?

Posted by: dutchess2 | May 17, 2010 6:15 AM | Report abuse

Is it not passing strange that the demand for abortion has INCREASED since birth control measures became readily available? And even stranger that a woman could prefer to disaggregate her baby than take a little pill?
If the quality of America relies upon the quality of its women, the country is finished.

Posted by: LeePefley1 | May 17, 2010 6:22 AM | Report abuse

abortion is why America has to import workers...
the plan was to kill off Americans, black and white, and it's working...
I'm sure the supporters of abortion are proud to hand over America piece by piece to the rest of the world...

Posted by: DwightCollins | May 17, 2010 6:27 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
17 May 2010

On the very remote possibility that Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or some other Republican should succeed Barack Obama as President after 2012, there is a very good chance that Sarah Palin will get nominated to a vacant position as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Her strident and vigorous pro-life stand now is what will propel her to the Supreme Court, and there join the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito.

With her on the Court, Roe v. Wade is bound to fall by the wayside.

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | May 17, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Palin's proper world would have no abortions, and no option for abortion.

What would she think if a law was enacted: Downs fetuses must be aborted, no choice?

What would she think if she lived in China, under the old "one child" law?

"No choice" doesn't always fall your way.

Posted by: MAL9000 | May 17, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives love children - before they're born. After, unless they're their own, they decry health care and education for the newborn as socialism.

But God has told Sarah, the Great Maboo of Republicans and the teabaggers, that Obama is Muslim, he will take away their Glocks and AK-47's, he is forming "death panels" to kill Granny and kills babies for fun.

They don't need to believe anything else 'cause Sarah and the bible told them so.

Posted by: areyousaying | May 17, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Palin's latest logic foray into abortion and feminism is typical of GOP propaganda in general. She tells women their choice is to have no choice (in abortion matters) and never sees the imbecility of this argument. One hopes women (and voters in general do).

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 17, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

She doesn't want to destroy choice in situations where there are no other options: rape, incest, and the life of the mother.


Posted by: tsapp77 | May 17, 2010 7:28 AM | Report abuse

In my mind, everyone is pro-choice. The only difference between one side and the other is who makes that choice, because a choice has to be made. One side wants that choice to be made by government, for everyone, always. The other side wants the pregnant woman to make that choice, with the help and support of anyone she chooses to include, or with the help of no one.

This is my personal opinion (as a male), but I just find it hard to conceive that a group of legislators can find a single solution that could be applied to all women, and would treat all woman with compassion and fairness. I am much more comfortable with the woman finding that "right" solution.

Posted by: williamhn | May 17, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

LOL. They created the phrase "pro-choice" for moments like this. It allows partisan liberals like Marcus to put out absurd headlines screaming, "Sarah Palin wants to deny choice" instead of accurate headlines like "Sarah Palin wants to restrict abortions".

Liberals know what an abomination abortion is so they call it "choice". What a load of crap.

Posted by: bobmoses | May 17, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

If you anti-choice types really believed abortion was murder, you'd be rallying to have women who have abortions prosecuted for murder. Or, at least, solicitation to commit murder. There's no statute of limitation on murder, so there would be millions to go after. Yet I don't hear Ms. Palin suggesting that at all. Is it because she thinks pregnant women are too deranged to actually make the choice that's right for them? Then, how could they possibly be capable of caring for the children they already have, much less an additional child? Should the state assume care of these children? The sincerity of the abortion-is-murder argument is questionable until those who speak it are willing to enforce it criminally against those who seek abortions.

Posted by: NancyESL | May 17, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Posted by: inedal | May 17, 2010 5:11 AM | Report abuse
-----------------
Think of the 58,000 American men sent forcibly to their deaths in Vietnam. Think of the 2 million American men in America's prisons, at a rate far exceeding that of other nations. Men in power are far more cruel to other men than they are to women.

Posted by: rohitcuny | May 17, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

There are alot of pro-lifers here. I have a question or two. If you guys are so pro-life why do so many of you support abstenance education when every study indicates that it is a failure? If Pro-life groups really wanted to limit the number of abortions they would plaster their publications with support for full sex education classes in schools. Also, why do so many pro-lifers support such odious candidates? It is true that Bush was anti-abortion but he started an unnecessary war that killed thousands of children in Iraq as well as many young American adults. And that was acceptable to you guys? One more thing, pro-lifers are also often conservative, so they are often against programs like providing health insurance to poor children or pre-natal care for poor women. How pro-life is that?

So how about it? Let us see some of you pro-lifers lobby congress for complete sex education in the schools. After all, the problem is not that teenagers have sex (after all that is none of your business) but that teenagers having sex which results in babies. The one sure way of reducing that is to have complete sex education. Accept that teenagers will have sex but do everything to keep them from getting pregnant.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | May 17, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Lets say Palin gets her wish and abortion becomes illegal. Canada has abortion on demand with Americans able to have it done there in less than a week, without major surgery using RU 486. The medical costs are less than $1000 within reach of even the poor. Mexico may be even cheaper but quality is a concern. Most women would still have choice but will have to travel to Canada for the procedure. Better is to create an environment that makes the choice for life easier. The economic/support ability of a mother raising a child determines many times the choice to abort. A halfway house to get her job training, a job, some coin saved to leave, support groups like an adopt a mother/child program run by church groups, free pre-natal care and medical care for a year from birth, rich millionaires pro lifers should adopt, instead we get busloads of people in front of abortion clinics. The economics of women choosing abortion is apparent when you see the relationship between lower incomes and higher rates. As a man I can only advise my wife and daughters on healthcare decisions, what they do to their own body is a decision that rests solely with them. Same for them with my health care decisions.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 17, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Palin was also married, had a great support system, a good income with benefits etc. when she made her "choice". That's a far easier place to be when you have that fleeting thought. Yes perhaps the darkness isn't as bad as you thought it would be, but then again maybe it will be far darker than you could have ever imagined. It's not my decision to make for any other woman facing her own road, mine is already full of my own potholes.

Posted by: OleLadySquawking | May 17, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin had the privilege of legally making the choice that was right for her; she should thank those who worked so hard for reproductive rights for this.

Posted by: no1buckigirl | May 17, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

How come Scott Peterson was convicted of TWO counts of homicide?

Posted by: qoph | May 17, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

I've got nothing against right to lifers except that they're hypocrites. They should put their names on a list and adapt and raise all unwanted children; then we can stop abortions. Let them put their money where their morals are. If not, then they should plain just shut up and stop telling other people what to do.

Posted by: jkarlinsky | May 17, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Pro life is a convenient term used in only one situation. Many of the Pro life folks are for capital punishment which is obviously pro death. Many of the pro life people are in favor of war which is a contest to see how many people you have to kill before one side capitulates also a pro death position. Many of the pro life people own guns for self protection also a pro death position. Many of the pro lifers have no qualms about shooting animals not for food but for sport also a pro death position. Maybe these pro life folks should place a disclaimer at the bottom of their position statements reading *The preceding view is limited by circumstance and age of victim*.

Posted by: vwallen@bellatlantic.net | May 17, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Of course she does.

The Tea Party movemment includes millions of Americans deeply concerned about the fiscal stablity of our nation and the growth of inefficient government. Unfortuanately if is being used by many social conservatives as a Trojan Horse for their views on such matters as choice, gay rights and a Christian fundamentalist overlay of our politicial system.

Any moderat or independent voter must be wary of proponents such as Palin. What they are selling is a relatively narrow view of what America should look like and act like. Be careful, very careful in voting for someone who tells you he/she is trying to protect your pocketbook when, in truth, they are trying to insinuate their conservative views into every aspect of your life.

Posted by: bobfbell | May 17, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Of course she does.

The Tea Party movemment includes millions of Americans deeply concerned about the fiscal stablity of our nation and the growth of inefficient government. Unfortuanately if is being used by many social conservatives as a Trojan Horse for their views on such matters as choice, gay rights and a Christian fundamentalist overlay of our politicial system.

Any moderat or independent voter must be wary of proponents such as Palin. What they are selling is a relatively narrow view of what America should look like and act like. Be careful, very careful in voting for someone who tells you he/she is trying to protect your pocketbook when, in truth, they are trying to insinuate their conservative views into every aspect of your life.

Posted by: bobfbell | May 17, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Being pro-choice and being pro-abortion are not the same. Outlawing abortion achieves its goal about as well as outlawing alcoholic beverages achieved its. Individual attitudes on the subject of abortion range from the no birth control extremists on one end to the abortion as convenience extremists at the other end of the scale. Each woman should be able to determine for herself where she falls on the continuum. Someone who is serious about reducing the number of abortions should be actively supporting responsible sexuality, access to birth control, parental leave, high quality child care, affordable housing, adoption, jobs that pay enough to support a family, and all the other support systems needed by parents in today's world. One valid criticism of the anti-abortion movement is the high value placed upon the unborn child and the decrease in value once the child is born. The response to this criticism seems to be that society should return to a romanticized vision of the social structure of previous generations.

Posted by: abbyandmollycats | May 17, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse


Electing Palin to any government position would be the same as giving your toddler the keys to the car.

Posted by: juneconwaybeeby | May 17, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps all of this kasmazzle comes up when someone brings up the circumstances of Trig's birth, so Palin goes on this anti-abortion creed.
She got on a plane in Texas, her water started leaking, rather than deplane in Seattle, she chose to continue on to Anchorage, where instead of going to the hospital there she chose to go another hour to Wasilla. Any women who has ever had four other babies, or even her first, has drilled into her by the doctors, if your water breaks or starts to leak,GET TO A HOSPITAL!!! The risks of infection, dry birth, proclampsia, cord around neck, face up birth, breech, so many problems can occur, including death of child or mom. With the challenges she knew Trig was facing, why would she risk all of these things? Cause she wanted him obrn in Alaska? Then why not Anchorage? Why get off the plane, get in a car and drive for an hour to another hospital? She risked Trig's life, and people have just accepted her inane statement about him being born in Alaska without questioning the obvious! She shoukd have gotten off the plane in Texas, or at the very least Seattle. Too embarrassing to have the 44 year-old Gov. of Alaska having an unannounced baby? She risked his life! She made the choice to carry him, and then risked his life at his birthing! What a female dog!!!

Posted by: katem1 | May 17, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Palin had a choice. She chose not to use birth control; she became pregnant. At her age, the chances of a child having defects are much higher. She chose to take that risk. What an idiot. Then, with complete arrogance, she bops around the country running off at the mouth about denying other women any choice at all while her children and her nannies take care of her Down Syndrome child, who will have to be cared for all his life, by his parents and the taxpayers.

Posted by: Chagasman | May 17, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Somebody's "mothering" Palin's children, but it sure isn't Sarah. She's too busy soaking up the limelight and printing money.

Most women wouldn't actually have the "choices" Mama Grizzly touts.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | May 17, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Seriously. Is this news or even remotely interesting? SARAH PALIN IS PRO CHOICE?!?!?!? SHOCKING?!!!! My lord, can we quit beating the same teeny tiny drum over and over.

Posted by: PitchMan99 | May 17, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Oh great- every time this gasbag backwater nitwit passes gas, the Post writes an article about her.

Let's face it-the only people who listen to this trailer trash moron are teabagger types. In other words, the most scared, ignorant, and stupid among us.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 17, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Never really understood how the party of small government and less big brother intrusiveness advocates so strongly to take one of the most personal and important decisions out of the parents' hands.

Personally, as a married man we would choose life. But there are too many circumstances and belief systems that may lead a person to a different decision. This issue constantly infuriates me about the Republican party.

Posted by: neptoon10 | May 17, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Some Choice. To murder or not to Murder. Frankly, I don't see that as a choice. If a child was out of the womb and mom murdered the child, there'd be no question. To murder a child is wrong and to say it is painless to the child is a lie. If the woman is old enough to screw around she should have to face the results. Why should a child have to be killed because of the mothers poor judgement?

Posted by: Hopinghere2 | May 17, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

$arah Paylin, media creation, is nothing more than an attention seeking propaganist. I have a choice and CLICK... great Barney Miller is on..

Posted by: whocares666 | May 17, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Hoping - guess it depends when you believe life begins. Out of womb, obviously yes. Sperm and egg, most people would argue no. Everywhere in between depends on your beliefs. You have your beliefs, I have mine. Don't believe your beliefs are more valid than mine, and I will extend the same courtesy.

Posted by: neptoon10 | May 17, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

It's absurd to see Sarah Palin hard at work trying to deny women access to contraception, knowledge and control of their lives, but tragic to see how it directly affected the life of her daughter, Bristol.

Posted by: claritygraph | May 17, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

One could argue forever but when you look at the facts no where in the Constitution does it say abortion is legal. You have to make an extreme leap to include choice into the Constitution. States make the laws and the National Congress enacts laws as well. The Supreme Court decides if the law is within the Constitution or not. The SC in the Roe v. Wade case even came out and admitted that they in fact wanted to make abortion legal. Therefore after much considerattion they decided they could come up with choice as the answer. Bottom line; Abortion, the killing of a baby, is wrong. Allow the states to decide.

Posted by: pechins | May 17, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

One could argue forever but when you look at the facts no where in the Constitution does it say abortion is legal. You have to make an extreme leap to include choice into the Constitution. States make the laws and the National Congress enacts laws as well. The Supreme Court decides if the law is within the Constitution or not. The SC in the Roe v. Wade case even came out and admitted that they in fact wanted to make abortion legal. Therefore after much considerattion they decided they could come up with choice as the answer. Bottom line; Abortion, the killing of a baby, is wrong. Allow the states to decide.

Posted by: pechins | May 17, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Against abortion? Don't have one.

Posted by: shewholives | May 17, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

One could argue forever but when you look at the facts no where in the Constitution does it say abortion is legal. You have to make an extreme leap to include choice into the Constitution. States make the laws and the National Congress enacts laws as well. The Supreme Court decides if the law is within the Constitution or not. The SC in the Roe v. Wade case even came out and admitted that they in fact wanted to make abortion legal. Therefore after much considerattion they decided they could come up with choice as the answer. Bottom line; Abortion, the killing of a baby, is wrong. Allow the states to decide.

Posted by: pechins | May 17, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I wish the abortion controversy would focus on three things:
1. Let's educate our children about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If you don't want people to have abortions, do whatever you can to prevent them. That means readily available birth control and empowering girls to say no to sex if they want to. I fear, though, that some of the anti-abortion crowd are also anti-birth control. I don't see how you can limit both and get the results you desire.
2. Let's teach men and boys the consequences of their actions. It's not just the woman who is the parent.
3. Exceptions need to be made for women who become pregnant because they are the victims of rape or incest, and for women whose lives are at risk if they continue the pregnancy. At some point, people have to realize that if the mother dies during pregnancy, so does the child.
This conversation will never be resolved until each side listens to the other.

Posted by: ebroadwe | May 17, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

good morning,

I believe each of us must have a choice, provided none of us injures another, and of course, the choice is legal. Given that an abortion kills a fetus, a human being, why is it said to be anyone's choice to kill it? The only conceivable explanation would be that the fetus is not deemed to be a human being. But we know even that is not an explanation. Why? Because, for example, claims of wrongful death and even charges of murder are filed at times against individuals causing the death of a fetus. They obviously would be inapplicable if the fetus were not deemed to be a human being. So, really, what is the explanation?

Posted by: LulingRanchers | May 17, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The "freedom and liberty" types allow it to go just so far. They want a Daddy-state that tells us who to marry, to sleep with, choice or not, what health services will be available to us (especially women) etc. Stay out of our lives and bodies.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 17, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

If you think abortion at any stage is murder then several consequences follow:

You have decreed that human life begins at conception; what or who has given you the right to do so? When does a "soul" enter an undifferentiated clump of cells, or a fetus without (yet) a nervous system? St. Augustine couldn't answer the question...what makes you think that you can?

If you think that abortion is murder than you should be advocating the appropriate penalty for those involved, the doctor and the woman. Shouldn't the usual sentences apply, especially since the act is clearly premeditated? That is, either life in prison or execution? If not, why not?

If you think abortion is murder because all human life is sacred, then why does the obligation to respect that sanctity end at birth? If a woman chooses to carry a Downs baby to term but can't afford the special care (for a lifetime) required, who should help her? Or should she and the baby (and maybe her other children) live in misery and squalor? Many other examples could be cited, but if you get this one (doubtful) then the others are unnecessary.

If you think abortion is murder, then why do so many of you (I'm looking at the RC Church now) oppose birth control and universal sex education? The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy, are sperm and ovum also human beings? (If so, then God is the greatest abortionist of all....millions of sperm die in every ejaculation, so every day all over the earth there are trillions of "souls" lost.

If you think abortion is murder, then why when your political minions (the GOP) were in complete control of the Presidency and Congress didn't they actually do something significant to prevent it (the "partial birth" measure was no more than a political sop).

Enough rhetorical questioning. I'll answer the last one: If they actually did something real (or if their SCOTUS reversed Roe v. Wade and let the states decide, creating a patchwork of confusion) they would lose a very potent election issue. You who believe that abortion is murder are being used and used up. Those who decry Darwin in the classroom but extol the devil-take-the-hindmost marketplace don't give a s**t about the "sanctity of life" or anything else but their power and their profit margins. When will you have had enough?

Posted by: jprfrog | May 17, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

The leftists ALWAYS leave out the choice of the fully viable but unborn life. This unborn new life depends on adults for everything and those adults deny them the choice of life.
Marcus, it's Infanticide.

If you're broke, there's always the temptation to steal money if that opportunity is right in front of you but ethical people don't and run from that temptation.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 17, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

All you who disagree with abortion, I want to see you FIRST in line to take on a poor woman's severely defored, brain damaged baby. A child that will live in pain and misery, never contribute to society, in fact its whole life it will be a DRAIN on society! Conservatives want cutbacks in social programs so which conservatives are going to take in these children that poor mothers cannot pay or care for?? Hello? Step forward please!!!! Gee, it got awfully quiet in here.

Posted by: GenuineRisk | May 17, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

The day I consider sarah palin a credible source on any of the primary issues of our times is the day I need to have my head examined.

She's a money chasing fraud. She's no model for womens issues - she's a willing tool being used by the men in her party to create excitement and raise money for a political party. She's not recognized or respected for her intellect. She's nothing but hot air.

Posted by: JilliB | May 17, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Another column about Palin's views. Well, if you are going to write about Palin's views, then it should have been about her latest comments to END MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. She's very pro-gun, anti-abortion, claims to love God, blah, blah, blah. But what's really in her heart and mind is to eliminate this nation's social safety net for the elderly.

If you have an elderly parent, please tell them that the Tea Party wants to end MEDICARE and privatize Social Security. Please inform them that the Republicans are persistently trying to discard the elderly to fend for themselves.

Funny that Palin wears her religion on her sleeve to attract followers, but if she was a true believer she wouldn't just defend the unborn, she would defend mercy to the elderly too.

Posted by: AnnsThought | May 17, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

When will this holocaust come to an end? 50 million childern hacked from their mothers bellies and these fossilized feminist want even more blood sacrificed to their false gods. The day is fast approaching when this nation will see the judgement of God poured out on it.

Posted by: wjj_johnson

.

.

Dude, The rapture is a myth. But keep on dreaming!

Posted by: swatkins1 | May 17, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

According to Genesis, life begins at birth.

Gen 2.7:
"then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"

No breath, no life. No life, no baby, no murder.

Posted by: MAL9000 | May 17, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I wish the abortion controversy would focus on three things:
1. Let's educate our children about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If you don't want people to have abortions, do whatever you can to prevent them. That means readily available birth control and empowering girls to say no to sex if they want to. I fear, though, that some of the anti-abortion crowd are also anti-birth control. I don't see how you can limit both and get the results you desire.
2. Let's teach men and boys the consequences of their actions. It's not just the woman who is the parent.
3. Exceptions need to be made for women who become pregnant because they are the victims of rape or incest, and for women whose lives are at risk if they continue the pregnancy. At some point, people have to realize that if the mother dies during pregnancy, so does the child.
This conversation will never be resolved until each side listens to the other.


Posted by: ebroadwe | May 17, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

________________

I agree but I want to throw in one more additional comment.

While controversial, there should also be some concern for the health of the fetus. Not all women are capable for whatever reason to take care of a fetus with serious congenital anomolies. Who are you or anyone else to ask that woman to take care of those children born with Down's Syndrome, heart disorders, spina bifida etc.
I am BY NO MEANS advocating the senseless termination of those pregnancies, but I do think that woman should be given that choice as to their own capabilities.

Palin by her own choice chose to keep Trig. Bless her. However, not every family is capable of properly supplying a lifetime of financial resources for special education, child care and the horrifying COSTS of a lifetime of medical care - especially in our country where Down's Syndrome is a PRE-EXISTING condition from birth from which children would be denied healthcare.

Take my child for example. I have a child with autism. I also have 3 other children. Our montly medical expenses alone for my austistic child run around $2000 for therapy (psychiatric and occupational). I would not change a thing, but I will tell you that if at another time in our lives, I am not so sure that I would have been capable of caring for my sick child.

Sarah Palin and any of you who insist that a family be required to have and care for a physically or mentally challenged child are NUTS. Some people are just not capable either physically, financially or emotionally and who are you to force your opinions on others.

Posted by: racerdoc | May 17, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Where and when did Sarah Palin say she would deny under a law the right of abortion. If you are implying that her suggestion that states not allow new health care companies to offer the service, that is quite a jump in intellectual rigor. One can argue that "abortion" is not health care and pregnancy is not a disease. Women can pay for those services. That may be a hardship, but it does not make the service illegal. This is just sloppy intellectual thinking and really stretching the point. Not at all unexpected, unfortunately.

Posted by: jack71 | May 17, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin is not against free choice. She is against women's organizations who want to force abortions on young women in the name of free choice - and there are lots of them."

There are no roving bands of people tracking down pregnant women and forcing them to have abortions. If by women's organizations you mean Planned Parenthood, may I point out that they provide contraception to men, too. Amongst other services.

The number of abortions may go up and down, but our population has increased too. So, how many per year divided by the total population is a different perspective. In the meantime, feel free to step up and become a foster parent. There are plenty of kids who find themselves in a bad situation through no fault of their own.

"Another column about Palin's views. Well, if you are going to write about Palin's views, then it should have been about her latest comments to END MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. She's very pro-gun, anti-abortion, claims to love God, blah, blah, blah. But what's really in her heart and mind is to eliminate this nation's social safety net for the elderly.

If you have an elderly parent, please tell them that the Tea Party wants to end MEDICARE and privatize Social Security. Please inform them that the Republicans are persistently trying to discard the elderly to fend for themselves.

Funny that Palin wears her religion on her sleeve to attract followers, but if she was a true believer she wouldn't just defend the unborn, she would defend mercy to the elderly too.

Posted by: AnnsThought

Well, if that's the case, that's appalling.

Posted by: Skowronek | May 17, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Someone wrote "Let's educate our children about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If you don't want people to have abortions, do whatever you can to prevent them."

Heaven forbid! That will intrude on parents' prerogatives!

Besides, everyone knows that a child mustr learn about sex the way we did: in the streets!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 17, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin "talks out of both sides of her mouth" as the saying goes. She wants to take away freedoms and impose her views on everyone else. Or does she really care about anything but what pays her best and meets her needs for attention. She dumps mothering her kids, ends up with a pregnant teenager, etc. but feeds her insatiable ego any way she can.

Posted by: withersb | May 17, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

This woman epitomizes "the distractor" in American politics.

On this particular topic, the position is immoral.

To advocate, what agitates, with no prospect for improved outcomes, is purely political, self-serving, manipulative, and unethical.

The published studies from around the globe document that making this particular procedure illegal: DOES NOT DIMINISH ITS INCIDENCE. When this procedure is made illegal, the incidence of the illegal occurence of the procedure increases, in place of the legal procedure.

As well, now that most people already avoid the procedure.

Why they, the prolonged distracting discussion of a theoretical point of non-consequence?

Pure, selfish, political, self-promotion.

Posted by: yno123 | May 17, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a retard.

Posted by: motogp46 | May 17, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I used to be pro-abortion in my young single wild days. Abortion was just another form of birth control for my female friends.

That changed when I became a father to a 24 week old baby boy (12 weeks early), born at 2 lbs because of placenta damage (lack of oxygen to the baby). Our little guy.. despite 2 weeks of declining oxygen for which he compensated by refusing to kick Mom when poked - came into the world healthy and kicking... of course liberals claim he's not a person until 36 weeks plus a day ?

The hospital ICU discharged him after 6 weeks at 4.5 lbs because he was strong. He came home 6 weeks before his due date. I think he was a person than too.

As a premature baby, he was at risk of deafness and blindness, but flourished nevertheless. Today at 16, he is a healthy loving and tall lad... 5-10 and growing.

I could never support late-term abortions again. My son Tom, a person at 24 weeks.

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Capehart is not only wrong, he's incredibly ignorant of the facts.

In a country where most employers do not have to offer even unpaid leave,much less paid leave, how on earth can a woman who needs to work for a living handle both a job and a baby? For most women, except those working for the largest employers, she can be legally fired for taking time off to have/nurse the baby in this country.

Who pays for health insurance for the mother and then new baby?

Who is willing to hold her job?

What happens if she needs bed rest or has pregnancy=related health issues?

IF she is in a low-wage job, how does she pay for day care?

Note that Sarah Palin does NOT support extending any government assistance for health care, job protection, day care, etc.

It's like tying someone's legs together, and telling her, "yes, you CAN win the race, just try harder!!"

Posted by: trace1 | May 17, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Lib's state that Palin is "jamming down" her beliefs! That's pretty funny since the Dem's have been doing the same thing to the public since they came to power in 2006 with hardly a thought about those who object to their "we want to fundamentally change America" rant.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | May 17, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

As usual, Palin's argument is built on an erroneous and transparently stupid premise.

To suggest that women who terminate a pregnancy do so because they have succumbed to the (alleged) feminists' arguments that you cannot have a baby and an education and a career is disingenuous in the extreme.

Palin needs to name the "feminists" who supposedly made that argument. (She won't because she can't.)

Secondly, Palin needs to provide evidence that women terminating a pregnancy are doing so because of their belief in these alleged feminists' arguments. (She won't because she can't.)

Palin is a demagogue, appealing to the simple-minded by offering them false arguments and convenient targets for their inchoate, impotent and unstable mental and emotional states.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | May 17, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

She's simply saying, government, stay out of my life. Unless it's something I believe in. Then I want you to control every aspect of it.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | May 17, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

It is absolutely disgusting that the Washington Post keeps devoting so much time and space to this stupid manipulative women. Palin is out there to make money, and she knows that more crazier she acts the more appeal she has among the right wing idiots.

Posted by: kevin1231 | May 17, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"I find it interesting that Lib's state that Palin is "jamming down" her beliefs! That's pretty funny since the Dem's have been doing the same thing to the public since they came to power in 2006 with hardly a thought about those who object to their "we want to fundamentally change America" rant.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | May 17, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse"

Child, please. The Democrats who "came to power" since 2006 WERE ELECTED. Elections have consequences, moron.

When Palin hold another elected office -- LOL -- she can do some jamming too.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 17, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

claritygraph wrote:

"It's absurd to see Sarah Palin hard at work trying to deny women access to contraception, knowledge and control of their lives..."

This is a liberal lie.

You might try reading Palin's biography... the liberal New York Times reviewer Stanley Fish, "found compelling and very well done".

Palin does not oppose contraception (p. 238); nor deny women rape kits (p.237);

In fact, Palin was a moderate executive leader... who respected and upheld even laws she disagreed with... she stood up to her own party on gay rights (p.143).

While Governor, conservatives passed a bill that would prohibit state benefits to same-sex couples and she vetoed it:

She wrote:
"I would be bound by judiciary's ruling...Therefore, even though legislators passed a law that reflected my personal views, I vetoed it. It wasn't about me; it was - and is - about respecting the Constitution and the separation of powers."

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 17, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

People talk such rubbish sometimes. Nobody chooses to go to hospital if they can help it and nobody chooses an abortion as a means of birth control. Women get cornered because they can't make enough money at work and the society they live in does not support their decisions to raise or not to raise a child. Setting a baby in the world is a serious decision.

As for Sarah Payment's opinions on anything. They are not to be taken seriously. This is the woman who shouted "Drill-baby-drill" as a means to confront energy shortages. If there's a problem, you can't get round it just by chanting it down.

Sccheesch, CB

Posted by: chrisbrown12 | May 17, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Palin allows women to have a "choice" as long as that "choice" is the one she has pre-selected for you. Palin and the other anti-abortion clan create a ridiculous, simplistic dichotomy: "Good" women have babies. "Bad" women abort... or use birth control.

They cannot fathom the idea that being "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not mutually exclusive. They cannot grasp that without more than one option from which to select, there is no "choice". And they cannot respect that smart, caring, loving, nurturing women are intelligent enough to make the best choices for themselves during their reproductive lives.

It is in Palin's world that women are incapable of complex thought, critical evaluation of options and long-term consequences. In Palin's world the selfishness of her "choices" are painted as "selfless" almost to the point of maternal martyrdom.

The problem with Palin and the whole wing of nuts she represents is that at first pass, one might think they hear something reasoned and thoughtful. It sounds enticing, intriguing, yes, even "empowering." Until you realize, much too late, that this siren's song will dash you into rocks, run you aground and leave you with nothing, not even the pretense of "choice."

Is Jonathan Capehart wrong? The writing is on the palm of my hand: "Wrong, Baby! Wrong!"

Posted by: jade_7243 | May 17, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Lib's state that Palin is "jamming down" her beliefs! That's pretty funny since the Dem's have been doing the same thing to the public since they came to power in 2006 with hardly a thought about those who object to their "we want to fundamentally change America" rant.

Posted by: elcigaro1

_________________________________________

Elections have consequences, cupcake.

The minority (ie the losers) does not get to choose. Or decide.

We lived through the eight-year horror of the Bush regime -- having disaster after disaster jammed down our throats. (Disasters that will have negative impact on America for generations.)

But Bush had won two elections -- and we had to suffer the consequences.

It's what happens in a democracy.

BTW, the Democrats regained control of Congress in January of 2007 and the White House in January of 2009.

That hardly squares with your statement "That's pretty funny since the Dem's have been doing the same thing to the public since they came to power in 2006" -- or with the unending, mindless opposition presented by the Party of No.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | May 17, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Do people understand that the United States is one of the ONLY civilized countries in the entire world that does not mandate ANY paid parental leave?

Look around. Most countries, whether they are in the Americas, Africa, or Europe, require employers to provide paid leave to a woman who has had a baby. Sweden offers up to 16 months of partial pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Here, it is perfectly legal for small employers (with fewer than 50 employee) to FIRE a woman who takes time off to have and care for a baby.

To Sarah Palin and the rest who would deny choice: Enough. If you really cared about bringing more babies in the world, you would be out there protesting the US's incredibly stingy health care and parental leave, which make it nearly impossible for many women to have their babies, even if they want to.

Posted by: trace1 | May 17, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

How about adoption . . that's a great choice!

Posted by: sarno | May 17, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, you seem to forget that women do have a choice even is Sarah Palins world. It just comes at an earlier time; its the decision to engage in sex. Why are we as a society forcing women to accept men's sexual mores, rather than those which are best for them?

Posted by: bruce18 | May 17, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Ms Marcus it sounds like you don't believe the entity inside a pregnant woman's womb is a human life. If that is the case, what do you propose it to be? If science confirms the entity has human DNA, completely separate from the woman, and if science also proves the entity inside to be female, the true feminist view supported by Sarah Palin and the early feminists would view her rights to be of equal importance to the woman who is pregnant with her. A feminist fights for the rights of ALL women without distinction. Pro abortion 'feminists' discriminate between preborn woman and those who were allowed to be born.
Abortion is an act of violence that does not consider the choice the unborn child would make if she had a voice. And while it may appear to provide temporary relief for one of them, it is never really pro choice. A law that allows a mother to take the life of her unborn child, (like the laws in this country that allowed slavery or prevented women and blacks from voting) should never have been a law in the first place. Future generations will be embarrassed that it was ever legal for a mother to kill the child developing inside of her in the name of choice.

Posted by: lisajulia | May 17, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

kejia32:

You could not be more wrong when you state that those who oppose abortion don't care about babies once they are born. The fact is that evangelic Christians, for example, are by far the most generous Americans in giving of their time, their talent, and their money to help people in need. They don't just talk to the talk. They walk the walk.

The position of the pro-abortion crowd is that the babies of poor women are less valuable than the babies of rich women. Because they face being born into poverty, it is better to encourage poor woment to kill them before they are born.

Posted by: InTheMiddle | May 17, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Desmond Tutu has a favorite story, which he tells very charmingly, explaining why God doesn't intervene: He gave us free choice, and to intervene is to deny us that right.

Posted by: patr2 | May 17, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Just to add my comment to all the noise: the ultraconservatives continue to be disingenuous in that along with abortion they also are against birth control. How can there ever be a middle ground if preventing pregnancy with birth control is condemned? Look around this world: everyone wants to control women and their reproductive systems so we have exploding populations, wars over water, a gazillion babies dying each year due to poverty and malnutrition - yet, these self-appointed ubermoralists like Palin do not stand up for these children, or birth control. If Palin is the standardbearer for anti birth control folks - she can go to hell.

Posted by: Tourist | May 17, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

This is a woman who claims to see Russia from her porch and who thinks Africa is a city in France. Why do we care what she thinks again?

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Both recent Palin pregnancies were inexcusable. If you're going to deny your daughter the choice of contraceptives and you are so damned careless that you allow yourself unprotected sex at the age of 45, you have lost the right to offer any woman anywhere your advice on the matter.

Palin is an ignorant sow. One hopes the youngest of her brood gets the hell away from her before it's too late.

Posted by: Casey1 | May 17, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Funny how Palin never addresses the fact that she allowed her daughter to live in sin with her loser boyfriend under her own roof and become pregnant. Jesus does not approve.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Another way to look at it is: Sarah wants to give fully formed unborn children who have traveled through the birth canal and are mostly delivered -- only seconds from taking their first breath -- "the right to make all the choices any other human being would make." What's wrong with that? And yet, many of those who claim they are "pro choice" including the President of the United States insist that the rights of those nearly delivered children are irrelevant vis a vis "a woman's right to choose." What nonsense, when at least half of those whose rights the "choice" element would abridge are little women! What nonsense, when all of them are human beings!

Forget about Palin. She does not advocate injustice in the matter of "the right to choose." Not so others, and that would include this President.

Posted by: kflb | May 17, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Not only should we scrutinize the choice issues which Ms. Palin calls to question, but her views on science and the science standards should be examined. Her views could cause major set-backs in scientific studies and education if she sets the policies.

Posted by: janecolby | May 17, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Abortion should not even be part of the political arena. They should be offered by a specially trained doctor, just as one goes to a dermatologist, ENT, dentist, etc. Abortions have always been performed and will always be performed, legal or not. And if they do become illegal in this country, the wealthy have the option of going to Europe to have one done (as they did before Roe/Wade) and the poor will revert back to the back-ally butchers. Keep abortion legal and safe.

And the busy-bodies that are telling everyone else to do should stay out of everyone else's business (or I should say, uterus).

Posted by: missingwisc | May 17, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

This is a woman who claims to see Russia from her porch and who thinks Africa is a city in France. Why do we care what she thinks again?

Posted by: unpluggedboodah

I bet she can pronounce "corpsman" and knows we don't have 57 states.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Desmond Tutu, when asked how it was possible to forgive the people who imposed years of tyranny during apartheid, or any injustice for that matter, quoted the famous line that anti-choice proponents might consider: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

Posted by: patr2 | May 17, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Our laws make our society safer.

Isn't that the point?

Abortions will continue, no matter the law.

If we outlaw abortions, we force underground the very thing we want to discourage. Out of sight, out of mind, is that the thinking here?

Isn't education a better way to prevent abortions?

I don't believe governments should to be allowed to kill people, but yet our government does so on a daily basis.

Posted by: thomp | May 17, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks it's ironic that a "small government conservative" -- who fears greater powers for government -- is advocating for government to have the power to control women's own bodies. Yes, Sarah Palin would have us be the only advanced industrialized democracy in the world where women's fertility decisions are criminalized. Sarah Palin is a real patriot.

Posted by: jessica5 | May 17, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Taking away the woman's right to choose will just bring back the dumpster baby trend. Which do you feel is more humane?

Posted by: BrownTown5000 | May 17, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm curious how Sarah Palin claims to be a good Christian mother but then allows her daughter to live with her jobless boyfriend under her own roof and have sex repeatedly until she became pregnant.

Sarah? We're waiting...

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

In Virginia and other states, we have "Choose Life" license plates. Now that people also want pro-choice license plates, the state legislatures refuse to allow them, even though it has been determined through the courts that they must provide equal access. So this is what the pro-lifers are about, you do what I say, and we don't care what you think or want, or even care what's legal or fair.

Myself, I'm already sick of the Choose Life license plates, because I don't like being reminded every day just how far this country has moved to the extreme right. What ever happened to truth, justice, and the American Way? Superman please come back!

Posted by: usblues1 | May 17, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Yet I cannot fathom why those who care so much about lives before birth, care so little about them after birth.

Posted by: kejia32 | May 16, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Amen, because they are phony they are self righteous and they really do not care
Palin is a sick and twisted phony wow what a mom blew it on the daughter and with all her travel gotta be great for trig oops he was always a prop anyways these people do not care she would rather be shooting wolves from the air then being a mom she is a HORRIBLE mother and person wow the followers are a joke and scary BTW where is trig in all this oops who cares he was in the way for the palin's, they got money now hire the handlers etc.. They are disgusting and Phony and a complete an utter emmbarassment to our country that they are representative of anything.

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Just because Palin makes comments, that doesn't make them newsworthy. Please trying to make her smarter than a 5th grader by the sheer volume of the media's coverage. She's not! Enough already!

Posted by: setnicker | May 17, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Palin isn't helping the republican party at all. She continues to make a fool of herself and if the republicans want her as their spokesman that will make the dems more powerful. Republicans love the constitution until it doesn't favor their point of view.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 17, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

"I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life."

What if her own daughter was raped and became pregnant? Palin was asked that in a Nov. 2, 2006, debate that aired statewide on public television. "I would chose life," Palin answered.

[from http://www.adn.com/2008/09/07/518512/abortion-opponents-give-palin.html]

Ms. Palin's views and intentions on this issue are quite clear, and they support Ruth Marcus's claim that Ms. Palin wants to deny others the freedom to choose. Beyond the Orwellian irony of trying to "cast this removal of decision-making as a matter of feminist empowerment," there is the deeper irony of conservatives supporting a so-called feminism which depends on a "Mr. Mom" figure (assuming the media reports can be believed, eg, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5359828-503544.html).

Posted by: jetchs | May 17, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

is this the only country in the civilized world that has this situation? the hate,and violence this issue generates is disgusting.

Posted by: pofinpa | May 17, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Just because Palin makes comments, that doesn't make them newsworthy. Please trying to make her smarter than a 5th grader by the sheer volume of the media's coverage. She's not! Enough already!

Posted by: setnicker | May

Just wondering if Barack Hussein Obama is smarter than a retard? No wonder he refuses to release his grades.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The essence of choice is God-given. Bible readers will know scripture in which God urges Israel to choose 'life that you might live'. If God almighty gave humanity the right to choose, why would anyone, especially those who claim to speak for Him, seek to deny us that option?

Posted by: Jose5 | May 17, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The terms of the abortion debate are often irrational.

Hey pro-lifers: Being pro-choice is not an all or nothing proposition. Abortion in the third trimester is a much different proposition than earlier on. I see why you would think it wrong to kill a fetus that is basically a baby that still happens to be in the womb. A fetus early in pregnancy is clearly a much different proposition, however.

Posted by: acebojangles | May 17, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Marcus writes as if this were some surprising revelation. Who didn't know before that this was Palin's view?

The language of choice is misleading. The option to terminate is already legally subscribed to some extent in every state and country. Past a certain number of weeks (usually viability), one can't turn up for an abortion on demand.

Very few people hold out for a "right" to terminate up to the last week of pregnancy. Like it or not, the state (even in hyper-liberal, areligious countries like Sweden) considers it has an interest in these pregnancies and won't permit their termination beyond a certain point.

There's no country that grants a woman complete legal autonomy over the child in her body for the entirety of pregnancy, if you want to look at it that way.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | May 17, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

There's only one thing I'd ever take Palin's advice on: how to fleece the Right Wing out of their hard-earned savings.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

in response to kflb: your argument regarding "partial-birth abortions" is a straw man argument and is used to facilitate you slamming the President or anyone that disagrees with your views. The use of rare third trimester abortions is almost always to save the woman's life, or in the case of stillbirth, history has shown that it is safer for the mother not to have to go through with the normal birthing procedure. You make it sound like someone woke up a minute before giving birth and said, oh gee, I really didn't want that baby, my choice! So, cut with the bull if you're going to make an argument. It makes it seem as if you have a whole other agenda. Do you have a problem with saving the life of the mother?

Posted by: Tourist | May 17, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

$$$$$arah Palin

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Never has so much of the news bandwidth been expended on a mere half-term governor from an outback state. It's obvious that if Palin were a man, no one would have ever heard of her.

Unfortunately, our brain-dead media seems to think we need to kept apprised of every oozing idiocy dribbling from her lips. Please send this gruesome spectacle back to the arctic desert that disgorged her and let's get on with the important work of repairing the post-Bush American economy!


Posted by: JC505 | May 17, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

You're either pro-choice or you're anti-choice. Don't buy this "pro-life" tag line they've given themselves. They are not pro-life; they are modified control freaks manipulated by super control freaks and religious types who want to dominate and manipulate your mind and emotional state.

One day these anti-choice folks will be no more. Their puppet strings will one day wear. They will no longer try to be master of everyone's universe. Along with the decline of the church and religion, so goes anti-choice control freaks. Good ridiance. Let's hope the future hurrys.

Posted by: ScottChallenger | May 17, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Palin also faced a "CHOICE" the night she got knocked up with her oldest child when she had sex outside of marriage. SHOULD I abstain? Should I use birth control? Or should I just gamble that I won't get pregnant and nobody will be the wiser?

THEN, she face ANOTHER choice when her daughter got into heavy dating. Should I explain to my daughter how strong the sexual hormones are at her age? Should I tell her how difficult abstinence is at that time? Should I tell her how to avoid such situations? Should I let my REAL self come out and explain that their ARE various forms of protection if she hasn't followed advice and allows herself to get into a compromising situation? Should I tell her how heartbreaking and embarrassing it is to find out you are pregnant and don't have a husband?

Sarah is the most selfish and hypocritical phoney I have ever heard.

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse


fjt1232 sais, " Why is Palin so dead set on jaming her point of view down my throat? This country was founded on freedom of choice and on religious rights meaning that people have a choice regarding their religious beliefs.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -
I think you are a little confused. Our Country was founded on the belief in Inalienable Rights, not freedom of choice -and certainly not the right ot kill a baby.
What religion believes in killing babies?
Don't forget - adoption is a choice too!

Posted by: thornegp2626 | May 17, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Ugh, the "choice" canard again. The question of abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of choice or bodily integrity. It's about when does life begin, and at what point and under what conditions is it acceptable/not acceptable to terminate an innocent human life.

Posted by: _BSH | May 17, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Palin certainly is a great reason to promote retroactive birth control. Other than that, I don't think she contributes much to the discussion.

Posted by: JC505 | May 17, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"I'm the government -- I know what's best for you. Now go have that baby or else." Sure sounds empowering to me.

And this from someone who likes to talk about too much government being a problem.

Posted by: tboyer33 | May 17, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Many of you believe aborting a fetus is murder...Fine, that's your right. I don't believe that. I believe a woman should have to right to determine what is best for THEM, not some Christian fascist who won't have to live with the consequences 24/7/18.

I'm an American citizen with just as many rights as the Christians who oppose abortion. It annoys me that these religious fanatics believe their right to their views should trump mine.

BTW, did you read about the woman in Arizona who was 11 weeks pregnant and was diagnosed with a condition that would have likely killed her if she didn't have an abortion? She had the abortion and the local Catholic Bishop went ballistic because the abortion (that saved the mother's life) was performed in a Catholic hospital and excommunicated the Nun who allowed it. So get this all you pro-life fanatics: if the abortion hadn't been performed the woman would have died, and so would her fetus!

I'm just so fed up with fanatics who don't give a damn about real people.

Posted by: Trakker | May 17, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

A young, slightly disheveled woman boards a crowded bus and finds no seats available. Finally, she ambles over to the Priority Seatings and says to the older, seated man, "would you mind giving me your seat. I'm pregnant." "Sure," replies the man as he stands. "What month are you in?" Looking at her watch, the woman replies, "Well, actually, it's been about 2 hours." A fetus is not a "young person." A day after pill does not kill a child.

Posted by: Keesvan | May 17, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Would it still be called "abortion" or would it be called "murder" if your membranes have ruptured, making birth imminent, and you STILL knowingly get on a several thousand mile plane trip, jeopardizing the life of the baby within you, and the child dies on the flight? ESPECIALLY when you already KNOW that the baby has life challenges??

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

In my book, any public figure, such as Sarah Palin who says "God whispered in my ear" is a lunatic and should be institutionalized.
The GOP and crazy Tea Partiers scream about too much government involvement, then want to shove down everybody's throats their own "moral values." The blatant hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Shove it, Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Gary12 | May 17, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

How about adoption . . that's a great choice!

Posted by: sarno | May 17, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse
yes you are right it is a CHOICE though not for you phony hypocrites to jam down a woman's throat
but i betcha mos of those hypocrites would shoot bambie with a high powered rifle and scope and call it hunting

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

bobfbell

Sorry - the teabaggers are only concerned that we have a black president.

Their whining about taxes when we pay taxes are lower than they've ever been is pure hoakum.

They are the bought and paid for henchment of Dick Armey and his republican activist group that rents the buses, the porta poties, gets the permits, pays the motel bill for the advance team, and produces the signs they are supposed to carry.

Nothing spontaneous, or grass roots about them...

Wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party that will say whatever they are told to say.

Posted by: dutchess2 | May 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I fantasize about throwing a hatchet, (Mohegan style)... end over end and having it split her wig from crown to chin... Imagine the sound! THWOP!

Posted by: veronihilverius | May 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

So much of the back-and-forth on this is mean-spirited. How does attacking someone's pronunciation, appearance, overzealousness, or missteps advance the argument? Palin's appeal is largely her Teddy Roosevelt take-no-prisoners, grizzly bear enthusiasm, not the strength of her cause.

Posted by: patr2 | May 17, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of how you feel about abortion. I find it so interesting that a Republican is for the government to tell you if you can have an abortion or not. I thought that being a Republican was bout having government NOT interfer with your individual rights? As a good Liberal, I am in favor of people being certified to see if they meet the mental and emotional challenges of parenthood, along with proving they are financially able to afford a child. If those rules were in place, I am in favor of NO abortion whatsoever!

Posted by: geoffryh | May 17, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I fantasize about throwing a hatchet, (Mohegan style)... end over end and having it split her wig from crown to chin... Imagine the sound! THWOP!

Posted by: veronihilverius | May 17, 2010 11:00 AM

THAT is over-the-top.

Posted by: Skowronek | May 17, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

When GW proposed his anit-gay Marriage amendment before the 2004 election season, I had a feeling he really didn't care if gays got married or not -- he did it to pander to a certain group of people and score political points. While I believe that Palin is truly "pro-life," I don't believe she is viriulently anti-choice. She preens and panders and calls attention to herself for all it's worth almost on a daily basis. "Lock and load," "reload and aim," "pitbulls with lipstick," "Mama Grizzlies." etc, are all said to keep her in the news. Pure financial and political calculation. This woman has got to be one of the most blatantly opportunistic and narcissistic people to come along in the polical arena in a generation. And she never goes away, not even for a week.

Posted by: creatia52 | May 17, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

kejia32: "Yet I cannot fathom why those who care so much about lives before birth, care so little about them after birth."

I don't. I care deeply about human life and human rights all through the life cycle.

And anyone who suggests that anti-abortion advocates in general care so little isn't telling you the truth. Killing is sickening to one who loves life and human rights. If it seems that we focus on abortion, it's because the volume of this sort of killing is so high, the vulnerablity of its victims is so unquestionabled, the legality of it in our back yard is so morally challenging, and the rationalizations so frustratingly transparent.

I'm no supporter of Sarah Palin and her presumed ambitions, but what's unadressed here by Ms. Marcus is Governor Palin's note of how the position of our feminists foremothers --- to whom we are so deeply indebted --- was so overwhelmingly pro-life. Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft: these are women who baseball fans would call first-ballot Hall-of-Famers in any book. And they all argued that women's rights can not be won or expresssed in the destruction of their children, but rather that such acts only extend the cycle of exploitation that is the heir to the patriarchal society they were living under.

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I am tired of hearing about Palin, that bimbo and the WaPo giving her any due. Her muddled thoughts on any issue are non-starters and she is a joke to the rest of the US, except in the eyes of this paper.

Get off it and give us some real news. This stuff is starting to sound like Nancy Grace and which ever victim she want to hawk that day with endless drivel. We deserve better than constant discussion about what is in the mind, or not, of that weasel from wasilla.

Posted by: seasail | May 17, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Palin is an entertainer. Who cares what she thinks. Sarah is for Sarah, and her pocketbook. That's all.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 17, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

CHUCKLES of the DAY:
#######
I bet she can pronounce "corpsman" and knows we don't have 57 states.
Posted by: cschotta1

#######

Just wondering if Barack Hussein Obama is smarter than a retard? No wonder he refuses to release his grades.
Posted by: cschotta1
#######

I am seriously wondering if the poor deranged soul who posted these juvenile nitpickings is able to reveal WHICH President she ever voted for who was perfect?? Please post!

Or which President didn't speak much WORSE errors from sleep deprivation?

Or which president would even LIE to start personal wars that murdered THOUSANDS of innocents AND continue to cost our nation TRILLIONS??

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

No choice IS choice. Gov't only expands under Democrats. Deficits are only important once a Democrat is in the WH. Saving banks is socialist but allowing 20% unemployment is a beautiful free market. Denying miranda to a US citizen isn't intrusive gov't but reviewing the cost of medical procedures is totalitarian. Inventing a World Gov't conspiracy is news but federal taxes at their lowest % of GDP since 1959 is propaganda. How dare you question that up is down.

Posted by: kchses1 | May 17, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Who cares what Sarah Palin wants? She's not an elected official. She's just a media tart and a snakeoil saleswoman in it for the only thing that counts for her: $$$$.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | May 17, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Palin had the opportunity to make a choice for herself, but wants to take that away from other women? Unfortunately, I remember the days when abortion was illegal and the dreadful consequences to life and health that women suffered from botched back-room abortions. Abortions have been going on since the Year One, and making it illegal again won't stop them.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | May 17, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Abortion is a medical procedure that doctors perform for a fee. Abortion laws regulate doctors, not patients.

Medicine is one of the most highly regulated areas of our society - we just spent a year and a half debating just part of healthcare regulation. Pro abortion people insist any regulation of doctors' rights to do any abortion they want, at any time, to any person is a Constitutional issue. This is an absurd position given all the other restrictions our society places on what doctors can do and can't do and how they do it.

Most people are not in favor of a countrywide ban on abortions or in favor of unlimited abortion rights for doctors. Most people favor reasonable restrictions on doctors' abortion actvities.

Ms. Palin has not put forward a regulatory program regarding abortion. Instead, she has chosen to share some very personal decisions she made in the hope of influencing the choices others make.
The pro abortion coalition can never forgive her for that. Instead of sharing their own personal stories, which would be meeting Ms. Palin in debate on the same playing field, the leaders of the pro abortion coalition hysterically try to shout her down.
This is sign of the pro abortion coalition's weakness and Ms. Palin's strength.

Posted by: jfv123 | May 17, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Just a reminder. This national debate is as acrimonious as it is because the Supreme Court took it upon itself to legislate a "right" not to be found in the Constitution. Bad law and very unwise. Otherwise the legislatures of the 50 states would have had to struggle with the division of opinion on this subject at the state level. Debates like this one are better left to the legislative branch of government and to the states. But while sitting on the Supreme Court does not "corrupt", like other forms of power, it does foster arrogance.

Posted by: Roytex | May 17, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

This is the same woman who kills innocent wildlife from helicopters and puts bulls-eyes on her political opponents, who goes straight from a so-called "pro-life" speech into an NRA speech. She loves guns. She apparently approves of killing fully formed adults with guns -- as long as it's in self-defense, right? She approves of and uses violent language about "targeting" anyone who disagrees with her politically. She is rampantly pro-war and pro-death penalty.

In other words, Grandma Palin's pro-life attitude is restricted to women's choices regarding their fetuses.

I have no use for such hypocrisy in the pro-life movement, and I really distrust them for whipping up the entirely false notion that the rest of us are somehow anti-life . . . same as being anti-American, if we have the gall to disagree.

No one, and I repeat, no one is pro-abortion. That's a fallacy created by the GOP to brand feminists with negatives. We are rightfully called Pro-Choice. Women ought to be respected enough by society to make these life-altering choices for themselves.

As this column says, "Palin made the correct choice for her. But she would deny other women the right to engage in a similar decision-making process." It's a simple as that. If Sarah approves of your choices (grab your guns ladies, but don't even think about preventing a pregnancy!) then fine. But if Mama Sarah disagrees with your choice, you ought to be prosecuted for murder, thrown onto death row, and never mind how many children depend on you. Or maybe shot at dawn?

You see the logic -- or illogic -- of these people. If they truly believed that abortion were murder, they'd go to funerals of miscarried fetuses. They'd put women on death row for aborting fetuses. Are you ready to do that? Is anyone ready to see the consequences of the absurdity of their illogical ideas?

Please, let's trust fully grown adult women to make their own choices, and keep government out of our bedrooms.

Posted by: cturtle1 | May 17, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

By choosing to carry a child with Down's Syndrome to term, Palin condemned him to a life full of medical problems and a short life expectancy. That hardly seems pro-life to me.

Posted by: dataflunky | May 17, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus, you are right that Gov Palin would remove the choice of an abortion from women IF she and her devotees of pro-life are ever placed into power. This would be a consequence of losing an election to Gov Palin's. Gov Palin is exercising her right to free speech to publicly persuade anyone who will listen that they should not vote for a candidate that supports a woman's right to choose to abort a pregnancy/child.

My issues with Gov. Palin isn't her personal choices but rather her competence to govern. She has proven herself an adept rock star, something she accused President Obama of being. She knows how to tug on the emotional strings of people both of those who love her and those who hate her. She knows how to start an emotional among the people but does she know how to extinguish one? That is very important to know.

Posted by: SteelWheel25 | May 17, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Birth control pills of every chemistry and color, birth prevention/control contraception of almost any imagination that didn't even exist 40 years ago, and still people are so ignorant they use MURDER as their only form of birth control.

ALL of these options have multiplied since the days when people and lives have become so very selfish and materialistic.

Now, it's just "normal" to have a 5+ bedroom home with 5 bathrooms, 2 cars, a camper, and a big boat in the garages, both parents working because one can no longer pay all those credit card bills for all the luxuries, each kid and parent has a computer, a cell phone, and hand held games, and nobody has time to talk to each other, no time to go to Church, etc.

I feel so fortunate to have missed all of this or handled it so differently from most, and still, I know I could've done better!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I would like to interview $arah Palin's fingers to learn the secret of sneaking into GOP pocketbooks.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, Sarah Palin cares mostly about Sarah Palin. She isn't responsible enough to actually work hard for her principles, such as finish her term as governor. It was too hard, too boring, and didn't receive enough attention. She wants to go around giving simple-minded speeches hither and yon, to whoever will pay her outrageous fees ($100,000 plus multiple perks).

This is not a woman who "walks the walk."' Someone else is caring for Trig. She has the money to pay for his care. Sarah simply does not care, and cannot imagine, what it is like for a hard-working mother of five who isn't as privileged as Fancy Sarah. Sarah has no compassion for anyone who isn't her.

She's "real" and by her definition, someone like Michelle Obama is not. Her arguments make no sense, are filled with acrimony and cheap sarcasm, serve to sell, sell, sell Sarah. Meanwhile, hard-working, honest, compassionate, serious mothers are also adults, are mostly smarter than Sarah, and are less greedy. I know these mothers myself.

While this greedy person makes 12 million in one year speaking trite rubbish to adoring audiences who agree with her, women are facing difficult life decisions without all that money.

I cannot respect Sarah Palin. And I certainly don't want her to make all the choices for my three grown daughters. I'll trust my daughters, all of whom are fifty times as responsible as gun-totin', animal-killin', hate-filled, negative Palin.

Posted by: cturtle1 | May 17, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Just curious about how the "pro-Life" side would propose to restrict abortion.

Here are some questions:

If a woman wanted an abortion would you confine her to a "maternity prison" or a "maternity detention center"?

Would we have "one-to-one" guards on pregnant women to make sure they "didn't make a break for it" and get an abortion?

If a woman crossed state borders to get an abortion would you set up a roadblock at borders to ask if women in the vehicle are pregnant?

If a C-section was necessary would you hold her down and intubate for surgery?

After surgery how would you restrain her?

Would she be allowed to see the baby if she did deliver or would the baby become a ward of the state?

Would OB/GYN's who counseled abortion be sent to a "doctor's prison".

Would women who attempted abortion be sent to a federal or a state penitentiary?

Would the woman undergoing surgery be required to consent to the surgery or could she be forced to go under the surgeon's knife?


Its easy to say you are "pro-Life"...I would like to know how you enforce such a policy.


Posted by: PostReader250 | May 17, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Thornegp2626 - "What religion believes in killing babies?"

Go back and read a little of YOUR Old Testament. Your "God" has little problem with the killing of those who happen to stand in the way of "his people." Women and children get no reprieve.

So the answer to your question? Yours.

Posted by: lincolnhunt | May 17, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"Choice"...that leftist euphemism for infanticide.....lovely people the left.....

Upside to this is that it is the left which aborts its own at a high rate....which is a good thing if casual abortion is legal and you accept the given that it is the left which wants abortion (aka "choice") and wants to make babies but not have to deliver them....

In other news, November, 2010 is National "Dump-the-democrats" month...time to clean House (and Senate) and take out the trash......

Posted by: georgedixon | May 17, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Even Dr. Laura agrees that the pro life crowd should quite whining about Roe and actually do something to reduce abortion. Like raise daughters with enough self-esteem not to get pregnant. Raise sons who don't think it's cool to find a girl with low self esteem who will have sex with them. Insist that schools teach those messages. Demand that pastors create an environment in which pregnant teens won't be condemned, and in which parishioners won't shun them. Be parents who won't disown them. Create social programs that enable girls to have their children and still get educations and jobs. In short, change the equation facing the pregnant teen so that the prospect of having the child isn't so threatening that abortion is even entertained as an option.

Palin pondered an abortion. She wants to make pondering illegal, at least pondering a legal abortion. The question I always have for these folks. What would you propose as the sentence for those who have an illegal abortion, if they succeed in overturning Roe? Which, of course, would be the crime of not bothering to travel to one of the many states that would not ban abortion and instead having it performed in a state that did. Death for premeditated murder of a defenseless child? If not that, what? Or would you just feel better having made it illegal and then not bother with any of the hard work of making it less prevalent?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 17, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

if women want to be "in control" of their bodies, how about making their man wear a condom! or am i being an insenstive boor?

Posted by: perryrants | May 17, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

When will this holocaust come to an end? 50 million childern hacked from their mothers bellies and these fossilized feminist want even more blood sacrificed to their false gods. The day is fast approaching when this nation will see the judgement of God poured out on it.

Posted by: wjj_johnson

.

.

Dude, The rapture is a myth. But keep on dreaming!
LOL great post

Posted by: swatkins1 | May 17, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse
By choosing to carry a child with Down's Syndrome to term, Palin condemned him to a life full of medical problems and a short life expectancy. That hardly seems pro-life to me.

Posted by: dataflunky | May 17, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Sad but very true
Palin is an entertainer. Who cares what she thinks. Sarah is for Sarah, and her pocketbook. That's all.

Posted by: jckdoors | May 17, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

No truer words were spoken but just think of all the people hyptotized by the televangelists, sadly alot of ignorant people vote

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

and just by the way, if we created the world described in my previous post, and if, in fact, we built an environment in which it could clearly be said that all abortions were mere selfish whims, then I would consider making having one illegal. not until, as we would then still have a society that would drive some women to back alleys, where they went before Roe, another subject the pro-life crowd does not wish to address.

I sometimes think the pro-choice crowd is doing more to reduce the actual number of abortions than the pro-life crowd, which seems content to feel good ranting about Roe (the irrelevance of which they don't even appreciate). Which makes the pro-choice crowd the real pro-life side.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"lincolnhunt wrote: Go back and read a little of YOUR Old Testament. Your "God" has little problem with the killing of those who happen to stand in the way of "his people." Women and children get no reprieve."

#############################

Yes, Lincoln, but read a "little more" of that SAME Bible!! GOD did the creating, so HE has the right to do the killing! We are HIS creation! HE, and ONLY "HE"!! NOT every selfish ignorant person who feels like it!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Posted by: lincolnhunt | May 17, 2010 1

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Liberals love abortion. It has been the the center of the center of their ideology for 30 years dividing America making the life of an unborn child a women's rights issue rather than the right of human life to exist. It is the same dehumanizing thinking that supports Kevorkian thinking on euthanasia.

The well funded Planned Parenthood is as insidious as ACORN in their acquisition of money. Despite legally being classified as a non-profit organization, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the government in order to carry out its operations, including over 300,000 abortions each year.

Posted by: 2009frank | May 17, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

We do not love abortion we love choice and we don't like people telling us what we have to do.It is none of your business as for euthanasia is very humane way to treat people I just had to put my dog to sleep and told the vet if we could only treat people with the same dignity but you self righteous phony do gooders would rather some suffer I only hope it happens to you when you get old and sick you should suffer as you wish others to

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"lincolnhunt wrote: Go back and read a little of YOUR Old Testament. Your "God" has little problem with the killing of those who happen to stand in the way of "his people." Women and children get no reprieve."

#############################

Yes, Lincoln, but read a "little more" of that SAME Bible/Old Testament!! GOD did the creating, so HE has the RIGHT to do the killing! WE are HIS creation! HE, and ONLY "HE"!! NOT every selfish ignorant person who feels like it!

And I am a moderate Democrat, which SOME ignorant people put all in the same basket as "lefties" as if we don't know how to think either. Democrats are as different from each other as night and day because WE "ARE" THE PEOPLE! We are NOT the multi-millionaire "REAL" Republicans (I'm not talking about all the democrats who "THINK" they're republicans so vote AGAINST themselves and FOR the multi-millionaires!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Sarah Palin is that she is using a "microphone" that she neither paid for nor paid her dues for. At least Saint Ronnie paid for his mirophone.

Posted by: fizzy1 | May 17, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

TO: Uffda52222 who wrote:
“What she was saying is … If anyone had an "excuse" to get an abortion, she did…
She's trying to reach out …”
-----------------

You are completely missing the point.

Some women who have abortions have support for doing so as well, and they have explanations for supporting their friends and associates or whoever, just as you're trying to defend Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin isn't the only one who likely has a very good "excuse" for having an abortion.

I'm Roman Catholic, I've never had an abortion, and I have children of my own.

I'm not in favor of anyone BUT the mother have a "choice" in what goes on in her life, especially NOT any stranger who knows nothing about that person.

Pro-lifers on the other hand, want to have absolutely blanket authority over people they don't even know exist, and would absolutely nothing to help.

Now just what if, in your conservative mind, having that baby MEANT that the mother and child would HAVE to be on welfare for years to come, in order for her to birth the child.

No doubt, as soon as that mother gave birth, you'd RUN straight to the voting booth to cut off all welfare, and leave both mother and child in absolute poverty.

Just stop trying to force people to do what you want them to do, especially people you don't even know.

Posted by: lindalovejones | May 17, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Yes, geofff is correct, there needs to be a national standard test to one must pass before having sexual intercourse, to prove that you know how to do it without creating babies.

This test would be administered at the age of 16, at the age of 15 one would be allowed to begin practical lessons with a suitable robot.

Gay people will not be exempt.

Posted by: thomp | May 17, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

How often does the right to bear arms bite us in the butt. Do we eliminate THAT right as well.
A women's right to reproductive self defence should be inalienable. Abortion can be regulated with out being abolished. It already is. Accurate sex/reproductive education and thoughtful/ engaged parenting are REAL answers. Roe v. Wade was correct, just not perfect.

Posted by: KJR1 | May 17, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Palin considered abortion not once, but TWICE with Trigg. Once BEFORE she found out about the Down's syndrome, and the other time after she found out. This clearly shows she was mulling abortion for no other reason than that it would interfere with her career. She clearly believes abortion is a VALID CHOICE since she MADE THE CHOICE. She considered abortion. That's pro-choice no matter how you want to pretty it up with excuses. To top that off, her book has some very strong suggestion that she had an abortion; she admits her medical records, w hich she would NOT release when running in 2008, say 'ABORTION'. She has a song and dance about it being a mistake; but she said she whited out the word "abortion" and put in "miscarriage". Sorry, but no doctor's office would make such a big mistake, and even if they did, no woman would white out her copy and allow the official records to stand...she had an abortion, IMO and is trying to cover it up.

Posted by: CraigFoley | May 17, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

None of this makes much difference as abortion is on the verge of becoming illegal. Once the healthcare bill takes hold watch and see. You asked for it, you got it.

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Since Abortion is murder (pre meditated by the way) then the people who want Dr's who perform abortions killed ( seems like the same people who like capital punishment)then a woman who has an abortion shouldbe executed. Put your money where your mouth is.

Posted by: vrf32 | May 17, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, Sarah Palin cares mostly about Sarah Palin. She isn't responsible enough to actually work hard for her principles, such as finish her term as governor. It was too hard, too boring, and didn't receive enough attention. She wants to go around giving simple-minded speeches hither and yon, to whoever will pay her outrageous fees ($100,000 plus multiple perks).

This is not a woman who "walks the walk."' Someone else is caring for Trig. She has the money to pay for his care. Sarah simply does not care, and cannot imagine, what it is like for a hard-working mother of five who isn't as privileged as Fancy Sarah. Sarah has no compassion for anyone who isn't her.

She's "real" and by her definition, someone like Michelle Obama is not. Her arguments make no sense, are filled with acrimony and cheap sarcasm, serve to sell, sell, sell Sarah. Meanwhile, hard-working, honest, compassionate, serious mothers are also adults, are mostly smarter than Sarah, and are less greedy. I know these mothers myself.

While this greedy person makes 12 million in one year speaking trite rubbish to adoring audiences who agree with her, women are facing difficult life decisions without all that money.

I cannot respect Sarah Palin. And I certainly don't want her to make all the choices for my three grown daughters. I'll trust my daughters, all of whom are fifty times as responsible as gun-totin', animal-killin', hate-filled, negative Palin.

Posted by: cturtle1 | May 17, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

So true I have 2 wonderful educated daughters that can make their own minds up, knew better than not to use precaution like Palin's idiot daughter ( maybe thats rough but the apple does not fall far from tree)
Palin is just a greedy phony with no brains she is shrewd she realized she could make more money spitting her drivel out that doing real work that required real thoughts and an education. Wow it is so funny to hear her followers they are completely stoopid

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

When the hypocritical "pro-life" people are willing to be "pro-life" regarding guns and war and the death penalty, I'll begin to respect them. They are pro-death (or at any rate, not so protective of life) in those three realms, but in the one realm that involves women's choices, they become self-righteous and pious about fetuses whose funerals they don't create or attend when fetuses are naturally aborted (miscarriages). Women have grieved silently for centuries over their lost pregnancies, sometimes for fetuses four or five months along. But I've never seen a funeral for one of these lost babies. If we truly believed, as a society, that these fetuses were fully viable babies, there'd be a different reaction. Instead, women are told to "get over it" and "try again." Ending a pregnancy as a choice, however, is somehow "murder".

Did you "murder" your dog when you had it euthanized? No, you kept a beloved companion from miserable suffering.

Let's be clear about who is compassionate and loving and who is merely in the business of controlling the lives of women and elders. Yes, controlling. This isn't about murder, it's about women having and making choices for themselves.

And if you want to see "selfish" behavior, I offer you Sarah Palin.

Posted by: cturtle1 | May 17, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

It's not looking good for liberals. Of course, everyday is a bad day when you wake up miserable, bitter and always angry at those more successful than you, and you go around chanting CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

LIBERALISM...A TRUE MENTAL DISORDER.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Must every single remark or gimmick that this imbecile vomits out in public be splattered over every GD news website??????

Are there really that many people out there who care what this intellectually stunted moron thinks about any subject?

She "wants to deny choice"? Good for her! But she doesn't appear to be in a position to do so now, does she?? But as long as it keeps cameras and reporters attentive to her, it'll be published on their websites!

ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Posted by: obx2004 | May 17, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This article point to the hipocricy of Palin's platform. She admits that women can find themselves in the situation were a choice must be made. Roe v. Wade granted citizens the right to make that choice, to act on their INDIVIDUAL choice, and to have access to the means to follow throught on that choice SAFELY. Palin personally availed herself of this choice, knowing that wich ever she chose she would be afforded the means to so legally and safely. Now that she's done with the need to make these kind of choices, she doesn't want anyone else to able to do so. This is hipocrisy defined.

Posted by: KJR1 | May 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Thank you very much. Palin is full of it. She really is trying to make up for all the guilt she felt after the mistakes she made in life. Then, she dreams through her own kids. She is slick and rides the fame out and that is bewildering since she and McCain lost. The glamour image now turns to gun toting "redneck" and grizzly bears. Oh do we need that in the White House. Ma Parker and the Renegade group-Jesus, Jesus, Jesus! With all the other problems we face, do we really need her? We have dumb oil executives; dumb wall street investors; dumb car executives and the list goes on so, having a groupie "Redneck" in Washington just sets a picture of "Washington gone Wild" on the South Lawn. Can you see the establishment around Washington? Heck even McCain's wife was in shock and lost for words and I do not think she has recovered since????????????????????????

Posted by: Scar1 | May 17, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse


When the hypocritical "pro-life" people are willing to be "pro-life" regarding guns and war and the death penalty, I'll begin to respect them.
Posted by: cturtle1

LMAO!! This is your brain on liberalism. How sad and pathetic. Can't tell the difference between a fetus and a murderer.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

She's also working within the framework that already exists. Right now, you are free to choose. Therefore she speaks in that language. Choose life.

She's saying, I know what it's like to face difficult circumstances. But I discovered that I was strong enough to get through them and strong enough to give this child a chance and I have never regretted it. You're strong enough too.

Posted by: Uffda52222 | May 16, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow yes framed in choice I agree and that choice should remain and whata wonderful choice she made for trig a life with no chance short life span probably constant meds and procedures and where is mum traveling around talking about being a momma grizzly if only she had eaten her young ! man it is scary to hera these phony self righteous christians go on and on they are truly dangerous delusional and most certainly NOT what JC had in mind

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Well let me try submit button again. Sarah Palin is not God's word to our ears. I cannot see her in Washington at all. The whole picture is one of horror. A redneck would object. Honestly, she just gives this picture of Ma Parker and the gang. She has mouth and what brain she uses is for her own benefit when one looks at the end. She is playing out some fantasy of being this rogue individual who is down home but, really just like the rest of self-interest folk around. She ain't poor okay? She ain't that dumb but, she likes the role. Well, maybe she is if she thinks we do not see through her hogwash. McCain's wife still traumatized by her. I do not think she has recovered yet??????

Posted by: Scar1 | May 17, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

It's not looking good for liberals. Of course, everyday is a bad day when you wake up miserable, bitter and always angry at those more successful than you, and you go around chanting CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

LIBERALISM...A TRUE MENTAL DISORDER.

Posted by: cschotta1
//////////////////////////////////////

Do you always just regurgitate whatever right-wing radio belts out, or do you occasionally have an original thought that requires, you know, thinking?

Liberalism a mental disorder? Ouch! Wow, what an insult. You really got them with that one. Whew. Wiping a tear away from that joke.

Posted by: obx2004 | May 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

When the hypocritical "pro-life" people are willing to be "pro-life" regarding guns and war and the death penalty, I'll begin to respect them.
Posted by: cturtle1

LMAO!! This is your brain on liberalism. How sad and pathetic. Can't tell the difference between a fetus and a murderer.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

No not the case just you guys want your cake and eat too guess what you don't want an abortion don't have one until a life can be sustained on its own not much of a life wow you guys are sick everytime I hear or read one of your spoutings of stupidity I just donate more to planned parenthood Why is ok to kill a harmless wolve with a high power rifle with laser scope ( real hunting LOL) why is that ok ???

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Do you always just regurgitate whatever right-wing radio belts out, or do you occasionally have an original thought that requires, you know, thinking?

Liberalism a mental disorder? Ouch! Wow, what an insult. You really got them with that one. Whew. Wiping a tear away from that joke.

Posted by: obx2004

Yes kook, that community organizer is really doing wonders from your radical agenda, eh? LMAO!

LIBERALISM........MOST OUTGROW IT.

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

2009Frank wrote: "Liberals love abortion."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And, just "EXACTLY", what IS a "Liberal"??

HOW can you put so many people in one basket and one ideology?? How EASY it would be for political candidates if it were THAT simple!

I am a Democrat! Yet, way too many people put me in a basket of "Liberals", which I am not; "Lefties", which I am NOT, and into whatever other baskets they so easily "name" and "label" people!! Even labeling or boxing in someone's mind or ideology by those narrow terms shows ignorance!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

No not the case just you guys want your cake and eat too guess what you don't want an abortion don't have one until a life can be sustained on its own not much of a life wow you guys are sick everytime I hear or read one of your spoutings of stupidity I just donate more to planned parenthood Why is ok to kill a harmless wolve with a high power rifle with laser scope ( real hunting LOL) why is that ok ???

Posted by: lildg54

The death penalty is punishment for committing murder! My god you people are about as dumb as they come.

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN-Gimme a fu ki ng break you retards!!

Posted by: cschotta1 | May 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus intellectually thin argument only focuses on women , not the unborn. A woman's choice by default gives the unborn no choice.

Face it, without constitutional rights, your pet dog has more rights than a potential human; just a piece of meat.

Posted by: rom12921 | May 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I really don't get Sarah Palin on this abortion issue. The Tea Party advocates for strong individualism, and rejects the so-called "nanny state." And yet, the pro-life position is to be enforced by the government, thru laws repealing a women's individual right to have a safe abortion, medically approved. This kind of position is clearly a step down to a "nanny state."


Alternatively, the pro-choice position (favored by many progressives) clearly supports strong individualism and thus rejects the "nanny state" for a woman's right to choose (along with her medically licensed doctor). Isn't the Tea Party about the ideal of less government and the nostalgia of Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

And lastly, isn't Sarah Palin's story about her choice to have a baby, just that, HER CHOICE? It seems like Palin is saying if we have legalized abortions, that is akin to the government making the choice for mothers. ORWELLIAN indeed: Doublespeak.

Posted by: rmorris391 | May 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Palin had a choice to abort Trig, or to carry him to term when she discovered he had Downs. She decided to permit him to live, yet women's groups have continually criticized her since for exercising her choice and not aborting him.

Posted by: mike85
*****************************************
That is complete BS. Let's see you come up with a single quote from ANYBODY criticizing Palin for not having an abortion.

Posted by: st50taw | May 17, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I can't help standing on the side after listening and reading of what Ms. Palin made public comments on national issues inside and outside of women arena and the only conclusion that I can come up trying to understand this woman is that she has very narrow view of not only in herself but also her political agenda. Now I do not know who helped her to be elected to the position as governorship of Alaska and GOP presidential candidate McCain deserved to lose his campaign , now that I understood more of her view, once he made final decision to pair with her for the nomination ticket. In big picture the GOP deserves to be hammered out of the US political arena if they continue down this path. Ms. Palin is very self-serving. She is only seeing in her narrow myotic view. For instance, she has a choice and that is to keep her pregnancy and as the result her baby suffers the rest of his/her life because of her choice; however, she resists to acknowledge other choices as far as pro or con abortion. When come to general politic issue, she failed to heed her boss's theme and agenda instead she went under her own way to promote herself as well her ideas: that is a rogue's behavior and poor taste. While she was governor of Alaska, she wants to pursuit her goal of closing the gap in balancing her budget. She cooed oil bosses to drill and explore in her state; however, she did not tell them that if they screw she would go after their baby college savings funds or retirement funds. She would not hesitate even to this very date she embraces the idea of drilling on and off shore of America blaming on the independence of foreign oil nations, when she has no ideas that her children grow-up eating stench fishes or foul smell land. May be she would just go into the wood and shoot deers and antelopes or elks. I do not doubt that she took the money from these oil companies CEO and lobbied people from capitol hills to accelerate the approval of granting these people the rights to drill and explore on and off shore without concern to the impact of our ecosystem. That's the reason she quicked the governorship and moved down to the 48 states. Greedy and ambition are solely motivator to this woman.

Posted by: Scorpion867 | May 17, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

dataflunky: "By choosing to carry a child with Down's Syndrome to term, Palin condemned him to a life full of medical problems and a short life expectancy. That hardly seems pro-life to me."

You can't honestly believe this, can you?

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

To those self-described "pro-life" people, if it's okay to kill murderers (death penalty), never mind that sometimes an innocent person dies this way, are you willing to put women on death row after they have an abortion?

Just asking.

Posted by: cturtle1 | May 17, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

vrf32: "Since Abortion is murder (pre meditated by the way)..."

It's killing, not murder.

vrf32: "...then the people who want Dr's who perform abortions killed ( seems like the same people who like capital punishment)"

I don't want anybody killed at all.

vrf32: "...then a woman who has an abortion shouldbe executed."

No.

vrf32: "Put your money where your mouth is."

What money? What are you talking about? Please stop playing this guilt-by-association game.

I want mercy, for mother and child, not a false choice between them. Surely you realize this.

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

It was easy for Palin to choose to have a Down Syndrome child because she knew she wouldn't be the one having to take care of it 24 hours a day: she's got a nanny (or two?). Other women, poor women especially, don't have this luxury. It's easy to be noble and say all life is precious when you're not the one having to care for that life.

Posted by: hawaii1 | May 17, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse


Palin = hitler as a milf

Posted by: lichtme | May 17, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

st50taw: "That is complete BS. Let's see you come up with a single quote from ANYBODY criticizing Palin for not having an abortion."

Right here in this thread.

dataflunky: "By choosing to carry a child with Down's Syndrome to term, Palin condemned him to a life full of medical problems and a short life expectancy. That hardly seems pro-life to me."

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Palin the Quitter!


... for FauxNews shill ....

Posted by: HillRat | May 17, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Those who believe in making abortion illegal are living in a fantasy world. If you ban abortion tomorrow you will not end the practice. Abortions will still be performed underground illegally by crooked doctors and criminals. Women will be maimed and killed. I know this because this was the exact reason abortion was legalized in the first place. Keep abortion legal and safe and spare us the moral superiority.

Posted by: steven08817 | May 17, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I was incensed after reading Capehart’s column. Firstly, no man, particularly a Gay man, has any right to assume to know anything about choices women have to make. For the better part of two decades women have been pressured by society to “have it all”, literally killing ourselves to be all things to everyone. It’s only in the last couple of years that women have given themselves permission to step back and say, “Maybe I can have it all, but maybe not all at once.” Every woman has a right to determine for themselves what they can handle. Some women can handle work, school, marriage and children all at once. But some can’t. And that’s ok. Palin made a choice to quit her job as Governor of Alaska before the end of her term presumably because she couldn’t do her job and balance her marriage and children all at once. Whatever her reasons, it was her choice. Why is she (and Capehart) so hell bent on taking that choice away from women or making them feel guilty for their choices? That’s what feminism is: making women feel empowered to make choices—without guilt.

Posted by: NMP1 | May 17, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Orwellian is the official language of the right wing, didn't you know that, Ruth? These are people for whom "empathy" is a slur. My God, never put yourself in someone else's shoes!!! These are people who think civil rights groups "forment racial hatred" by noticing that white supremacists don't like black people. These are people who will accuse you of anti-Christian bigotry when you object to their noxious claims that homosexuality is a crime against nature and a sin against God.

I've racked my brain trying to find a similar perverted logic, and the closest I can come is the twisted thinking of the old-style Stalinists who also saw things entirely from their own narrow worldview and so were able to utter absurdities such as: "peace" is what will prevail when everyone is a communist; so a "war-mongering imperialist" is someone who doesn't want "peace."

Posted by: TedFrier | May 17, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

A woman does have a choice. There are lots of birth control pills and devices out there. They may not stop all the pregnancies but they should be considered by sexually active females. And the males should wear protection. The pro-choice argument could be stopped up front. Forty million legal abortions--this is an atrocity.

Posted by: johntu | May 17, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Birth control! Birth control! Birth control! This is what we ought to be hearing from antiabortionists. As has been said repeatedly, NO ONE likes abortion. So, why is it that we don't find common ground in birth control? Could it be that their form of birth control is controlling women so that they do have x amount of babies? Why else avoid the topic? They'll engage in namecalling, slander, misrepresentation, politics, and hypocrisy - but they will not encourage responsible family planning with use of birth control methods.

Palin's own daughter was left in ignorance when her mother knew she was no doubt being tempted by her own biological drive. Perhaps Ms. Palin needed a permanent babysitter. Until the antiabortion movement engages positively in the birth control arena, they can be looked upon as not taking abortion seriously as real prevention would eliminate the need for abortion. They can rant about liberals and lefties all they want, but until they encourage education for those most vulnerable, they are gasbags attempting to control women's reproduction or to feel like they are more superior, religous, etc. As for Ms. Palin's risk taking behavior of unprotected sex at her age, ignorance breeds ignorance, and to that, in Bristol, she has a testament.

Posted by: Tourist | May 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

edgydc wrote: I want mercy, for mother and child, not a false choice between them. Surely you realize this.
_________________________
Why should anyone "surely" realize why you think the way you do? It's inconsistent and unclear. It makes no sense. You want "mercy" for mother and child? But you don't want mothers to have any say in their reproductive life? You don't trust women to decide what's best for them, and possibly for their many existing children?

Is it "mercy" to refuse women the right to choose whether to become mothers? What kind of mercy are you talking about? Are you saying you'd convict them of "killing" -- if they had an abortion (under the Sarah Palin Style Regime) -- but then let them off the hook? Just a jail term perhaps? Some 17-yr-old who was foolish would be in prison, is that it? A 47-yr-old mother of six would go to a "wayward women's prison"?

In what other way do you define "killing"? Is it okay to shoot wolves from helicopters? Is that "killing"? Is that "mercy"? What about war? What about the innocent babies killed in the middle east? Is that okay?

You can't have it both ways. Life, unfortunately for the likes of Palin, is not a simple, easy, straightforward, black-and-white business. The false choices are the ones Palin sets on the table.

How about euthanizing your much-loved suffering dog or cat? Would you keep your own beloved parent in a state of chronic pain and suffering, just for the sake of some simple-minded life vs. death argument? I hope not, for their sakes.

Palin and followers are the ones handing around -- on Facebook no less -- simple-minded, easy but very false, choices.

Posted by: cturtle1 | May 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Yet I cannot fathom why those who care so much about lives before birth, care so little about them after birth."

Well said!

Why is it that the people who most stridently call themselves "Christian" take the most unChristian-like stances against healthcare, immigration and the poor in our society?

Posted by: REB3 | May 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say abortion was murder a reporter asked Bush if he agreed with the
relgious right that abortion was murder and he said "yes"he is your guru so I thought you agreed.

Posted by: vrf32 | May 17, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"johntu wrote: A woman does have a choice. There are lots of birth control pills and devices out there. They may not stop all the pregnancies but they should be considered by sexually active females. And the males should wear protection. The pro-choice argument could be stopped up front. Forty million legal abortions--this is an atrocity."

############################

Yes, it is John! But, obviously, we have people who are too lazy, too selfish, or too stupid to think ahead and use protection.

They obviously PREFER "murder", regardless of what "semantics" they twist up into words to lie to themselves. Our society is just as at fault for "ALLOWING" the murders! WHO of these murderers has ever HELD one of these little babies in his own hand and seen the perfection of fingers, toes, ears, arms, legs, etc.??

Yes, this baby being murdered is not yet able to care for itself, but neither does any full term baby care for itself, and neither did any of the murderers care for themselves when their mothers decided NOT to kill their little "blobs of protoplasm".

However, I'm a firm believer in "what goes around, comes around!" My husband was treated with extreme mental cruelty by his best friend/boss, years ago, before he died, and now this same boss is a walking vegetable, with full-blown Alzheimers! I didn't have to do a single vengeful thing. It couldn't happen to a more deserving person!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

cschotta1 - "everyday is a bad day when you wake up miserable, bitter and always angry at those more successful than you."
-------------------------------------------

I'm sorry that's your perception of liberals. I truly think it says more about you than it does about me.

I doubt you'll believe it, but I never wake up miserable and bitter. Also, I don't find myself angry at those with more than me. Admittedly, the latter is a pretty small group.

No, I don't think your definition of liberal quite rings true. Here's mine:

A liberal is one who has learned that her/his view of the world is not exclusive. A liberal is one who has learned to empathize with those who come from different backgrounds and circumstances. A liberal is one who tries to care as much about the general welfare of all people and her/his own.

So, Mr. cschotta1, hate me if you wish. I won't return the favor. Call me socialist, communist, or any other derogatory phrase that helps you sleep better at night.

You don't worry near as much what others think of you when you come to realize how seldom they ever do.

Posted by: lincolnhunt | May 17, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Mrs. Palin uses so many animal analogies; pit bulls, mama grizzlies, etc.

Animals are known for killing their young. When stressed, for dominance, or sometimes just because, animals will kill, even eat, their own.

Mrs. Palin is not particularly intellectually curious. But I guess that's good for many Americans.

Posted by: arancia12 | May 17, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

cturtle1 :

"edgydc wrote: I want mercy, for mother and child, not a false choice between them. Surely you realize this."
_________________________
Why should anyone "surely" realize why you think the way you do?"

I wrote "Surely you realize THAT..." not "Surely you realize WHY."

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

By the way, "REB3", I think immigration is wonderful! I wouldn't "BE" if all my sets of great grandparents had not been allowed to immigrate here. It isn't the immigration part.

It's the "ILLEGAL" part! The "illegals" are enjoying all the FREE benefits of their crimes, working for cash and putting it into banks or Western Unioning it to their countries, (without even having a "REAL" Social Security number,) getting free healthcare, free schooling, taking good jobs from legal citizens, etc., ALL at the expense and labors of the working tax-paying descendents of LEGAL immigrants!

Most places, this is called stealing, besides the crime of BEING here illegally!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Good thing she is making all of that money. She'd never want bug government to help with a private choice - her challenged baby. Too bad not all mothers have such means.

One could question whether her choice was fair to her other kids. Will this deny them their mother's attention, love and mentoring? Not to worry - she already sacrificed that to get the money and attention.

Posted by: twstroud | May 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Sarah quit her job and lost the election for VP. She is now saying anything for a buck. Sarah has daughters who will have to make a choice and one who has a child and is still partying at clubs. The Media continues to print the stupidity of Sarah's comments and as long as people are giving her money she will entertain. It would be nice if the Press gave the American people information we need in this bad Economy rather the trash and ignorant comments by Sarah Palin. Sarah might want to take care of her girls before another one has a baby.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | May 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

There are some issues which need to be addressed here. One is that abortion has different moral status and different biological status at various stages of pregnancy. Catholicism and Buddhism both object to abortion from the start, but Islam only objects to it after 4 months. Many European countries ban or limit abortion after 3 months, so the recent Nabraska law allowing abortion for 5 months is rather liberal by European standards.

The other is that opposition to abortion need not come from religion. Opposition to domestic violence, war, capital punishment or mistreatment of animals comes from purely secular motives. There is nothing wrong with a purely secular opposition to all abortions or to late abortions.

So a secular person can perfectly well say, "No you cannot beat your spouse, you cannot mistreat your dog and you cannot abort an unborn human."

Posted by: rohit57 | May 17, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

By the way, "REB3", I think immigration is wonderful! I wouldn't "BE" if all my sets of great grandparents had not been allowed to immigrate here. It isn't the immigration part.

It's the "ILLEGAL" part! The "illegals" are enjoying all the FREE benefits of their crimes, working for cash and putting it into banks or Western Unioning it to their countries, (without even having a "REAL" Social Security number,) getting free healthcare, free schooling, taking good jobs from legal citizens, etc., ALL at the expense and labors of the working tax-paying descendents of LEGAL immigrants!

Most places, this is called stealing, besides the crime of BEING here illegally!

Posted by: Maerzie
Great Post but you do assume REB3 can think or is capable of an intellectual thought LOL bad assumtion

Posted by: lildg54 | May 17, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

... Before that time, the woman has all the rights, after that time, the fetus gains more rights, assuredly acquiring full human status at some point at or about the third trimester. Viability of the fetus might be a reasonable guide. Not all that difficult.

Posted by: ChampsEleves

So what you are saying is that at some point a woman loses all her rights. She becomes nothing more than a vessel that supports a human while she is less than human.

If the fetus is considered to have "full human status" then what a woman eats, if she works, driving a car, walking on slippery sidewalks, virtually anything she does that might impact the "full human" in her violates its rights. Therefore the law can tell her what to do and what not to do.

Yours is troublesome and sick view of the future.

Posted by: arancia12 | May 17, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

More "wisdom and HAPPINESS" below from cschotta1, the "sane" one among us:

"The death penalty is punishment for committing murder! My god you people are about as dumb as they come. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN-Gimme a fu ki ng break you retards!!"


Posted by: Maerzie | May 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

A fetus in the womb is not a child. This consistent use of misleading and prejudicial language is an indicator that the prolifers don't really have an argument.

A definition of humanity based on genetics must also spare hangnails and skin cells .. the only rational one is based on consciousness, with uniqueness based on the accumulation of experience in a conscious mind. Anything else is just speciesism.

In electing to bear a mentally retarded child Palin ignored useful information, unlike 90% of women who, given that information, make the rational choice.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 17, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Marcus, in describing Palin's comments, noted their Orwellian shadows. In her article though, she mentions that 90% of (elective, i suppose... or hope) abortions are because of major abnormalities. It reminded me of Brave New World, which isn't written by Mr. Orwell, but is quite similar. Does this statistic not scare anyone else? We're purging our society.

I suppose this might sound like another tired anti-abortion rant, but it's different to me. Inconvenient children is one thing, although in and of itself terrible to talk of, but that statistic shows something far more disturbing.

Posted by: ronibwh | May 17, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler: "A fetus in the womb is not a child. This consistent use of misleading and prejudicial language is an indicator that the prolifers don't really have an argument."

Based on in-utero imagery, among other things, I highly disagree.

Noacoler: "A definition of humanity based on genetics must also spare hangnails and skin cells .. the only rational one is based on consciousness, with uniqueness based on the accumulation of experience in a conscious mind. Anything else is just speciesism."

A very eugenical argument indeed. At what age or IQ do we become endowed with rights?

Noacoler: "In electing to bear a mentally retarded child Palin ignored useful information, unlike 90% of women who, given that information, make the rational choice."

st50taw, that's two posters in this thread criticizing Governor Palin for not having an abortion.

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

What is really worrisome is not the mere fact of abortion but the sheer numbers. The US has more than a million abortions per year. That shows that abortion is being used as an alternative to simple precaution and birth control.

Some sanctions against abortion really are necessary. It does seem to be strange that in our society we take double parking or honking your horn at night to be greater offenses (pubishable by a stiff fine) than taking a human life.

I personally think that the Supreme Court should get OUT of regulating (or unregulating) abortion, and pro-life and pro-choice people should work out a reasonable compromise between their positions. Such a compromise would make sure that no one's life is ruined by not being able to have an abortion, but also make sure that we, as a society, show our respect for life in our laws.

These fights between Palin and liberals is unseemly. Each side has a piece of the truth and needs to treat the other side with respect and understanding.

Posted by: rohit57 | May 17, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin protests the expansion of government...yet wants to use it to inflict her own points of view on others.

Hey Sarah! I think all voters should have to read newspapers, magazines and watch NPR television programs
(not their choices either) to stay informed before they vote.

What do you think about that!

Posted by: Badger21 | May 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: PostReader250 | May 17, 2010 11:48 AM .

«Here are some questions:»

«If a woman wanted an abortion would you confine her to a "maternity prison" or a "maternity detention center"?»

Neither, O PostReader250. The «Army of Gosh» used to bomb abortion clinics. The Shore Patrol of the «Navy of Gosh» would intercept the mother, bring her to the dock in a Fresh Air taxicab, and ferry her to a Navy of Gosh maternity hospital ship.

«Would we have "one-to-one" guards on pregnant women to make sure they "didn't make a break for it" and get an abortion?»

The Kingfish would deploy a fleet of «Mystic Knights of the Sea» PT boats to protect the expectant mothers from Feminazi pirates trying to snatch them from the maternity hospital ships in order to abort their unborn babies in abortuaries on shore.
. . .
«Would she be allowed to see the baby if she did deliver or would the baby become a ward of the state?»

O PostReader250, once the baby is born, the mother, she will fall in love with her new son or daughter, no matter how much she thought she wanted to kill him or her before he or she was born.

«Would OB/GYN's who counseled abortion be sent to a "doctor's prison".»

O PostReader250. this question will become irrelevant, the doctors will make an agreement, there is a song:

«Last night I had the strangest dream
I never dreamed before.
I dreamed the doctors all agreed
They would abort no more.

«I dreamed I saw a mighty room
The room was filled with men
And the papers they were signing said
They'd never kill again.

«And when the papers all were signed
And a million copies made,
They all joined hands and bowed their heads,
And grateful prayers were prayed.

«And the babies in the streets below
Were dancing round and round,
And aspirators and curettes
Lay scattered on the ground.

«Last night I had the strangest dream
I never dreamed before.
I dreamed the doctors all agreed
They would abort no more.»

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | May 17, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

And where is her little Downs bundle of joy as she flits around the country firing up the righteous? And many money hand over fist. She talks about Trig, but who's caring for him?

Posted by: trbajaz | May 17, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

There are so many non-thinkers who ride the emotional roller coaster of this issue and want to impose their will on others it's sickening.

To those comparing this to the holocaust ..get real!
And to those who complain they could never have an abortion...well then good don't have one!

And to all the other whiners get off your horses's behind and adopt a child or foster one if this is such an important emotional issue to yo. Put your money where your mouth is!

If only those who declare themselves Christians would actually act out their "beliefs"!

Posted by: Badger21 | May 17, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

REB3: "Yet I cannot fathom why those who care so much about lives before birth, care so little about them after birth."

Well said!

Why is it that the people who most stridently call themselves "Christian" take the most unChristian-like stances against healthcare, immigration and the poor in our society?"

Just please stop with the stereotyping.

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Do you really believe professed Christians aren't adopting?

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Choosing life is the best choice, most would agree, and Sarah Palin is definitely for that!

Posted by: freemarketer | May 17, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Choosing life is the best choice, I think most would agree, and Sarah Palin is without any doubt for that choice!

Posted by: freemarketer | May 17, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Never ceases to amaze me that men believe they have the same say in this matter as women. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If men could get pregnant, abortion would have been the law of the land centuries ago, birth control, child care, and extended leave for childbirth would all be signed and paid for by the government.

Until you can get pregnant, you have no idea....

Posted by: FactChecker1 | May 17, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

In 2005, the U.S. abortion rate declined to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, continuing the downward trend that started after the abortion rate peaked at 29.3 in 1981, according to a new Guttmacher Institute census of U.S. abortion providers. The abortion rate is now at its lowest level since 1974. The number of abortions declined as well, to a total of 1.2 million in 2005, 25% below the all-time high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990.

1.2 million abortions performed in 2005, out of a total US population estimated around 295,000,000.

This is from the CIA factbook:

Population:
307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)

Age structure:

0-14 years: 20.2% (male 31,639,127/female 30,305,704)
15-64 years: 67% (male 102,665,043/female 103,129,321)
65 years and over: 12.8% (male 16,901,232/female 22,571,696) (2009 est.)

From Guttmacher:

Approximately 1,370,000 elective abortions occur annually in the U.S.

· 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

· 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.

· 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").

Abortion Statistics - Demographics

· Age - 52% of women getting an abortion are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)

· Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.

· Race - 63% of abortion patients are white. African-American women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

· Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion identify as Protestant & 27% Catholic.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children.

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

· 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)

*54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
*90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
*8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
*It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.

Posted by: Skowronek | May 17, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

To all the pro-life activists: Leave my uterus alone. It's mine, not yours. Get a life. Stay out of mine. Did you ever stop to think that maybe not all people believe as you, nor should they. Stop being so pompous. You know the old adage about glass houses and stones. Stop throwing the stones.

Posted by: missingwisc | May 17, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

TO: FactChecker1 who wrote:
“Never ceases to amaze me that men believe they have the same say in this matter as women. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
If men could get pregnant, abortion would have been the law of the land centuries ago, birth control, child care, and extended leave for childbirth would all be signed and paid for by the government.
Until you can get pregnant, you have no idea....”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent point. Back in the old days, men used to get one woman pregnant after another, and another, only to leave all of them on their own for yet another woman, and some were very proud about “spreading their seed”.

Years later, after absent father had been nowhere around to help raise any of the illegitimate children he fathered, he’d come back to mooch off the ones who had done well for themselves.

Nowadays, women are not subject to that abuse, and now men have to plan ahead and get permission from most women before he fathers a child.

Of course, this is what women prefer, and what men just seeking control over women, abhore.

Posted by: lindalovejones | May 17, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

TO: FactChecker1 who wrote:
“Never ceases to amaze me that men believe they have the same say in this matter as women. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
If men could get pregnant, abortion would have been the law of the land centuries ago, birth control, child care, and extended leave for childbirth would all be signed and paid for by the government.
Until you can get pregnant, you have no idea....”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent point. Back in the old days, men used to get one woman pregnant after another, and another, only to leave all of them on their own for yet another woman, and some were very proud about “spreading their seed”.

Years later, after absent father had been nowhere around to help raise any of the illegitimate children he fathered, he’d come back to mooch off the ones who had done well for themselves.

Nowadays, women are not subject to that abuse, and now men have to plan ahead and get permission from most women before he fathers a child.

Of course, this is what women prefer, and what men just seeking control over women, abhore.

Posted by: lindalovejones | May 17, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

This argument is over and done. The law has been established and is unimpeachable. But it was a good vote-winner with the rural religious right so the Republicans don't want to let it go. Women have the right to choose. Repeat after me, women have the right to choose.

Posted by: gposner | May 17, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Don't you find it very interesting that friends and fellow workers of Sarah Palin didn't even know she was pregnant until her seventh month. Only then did Palin DECIDE to keep her Down's Syndrome baby.
The operative word is .....DECIDE. A choice she made then and a choice she wants to deny every other woman.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | May 17, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

No kidding? palin wants to limit liberty for everyone except mega-corporations? Who'd of thunk it?

Posted by: John1263 | May 17, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It's easy to make the choice to keep your DS baby when you are able to hand it off to someone and travel the country like a gypsy scamming money from the gullible. You know, like $arah Palin.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"Liberals love abortion. It has been the the center of the center of their ideology for 30 years dividing America making the life of an unborn child a women's rights issue rather than the right of human life to exist. It is the same dehumanizing thinking that supports Kevorkian thinking on euthanasia."

Oh, please. Enough already. The Republicans are the ones that love abortion. Not the act of course, just the subject matter. I mean, why else would they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it while in power of Congress and the White House, then conveniently bring it up EVERY FREAKIN' ELECTION CYCLE to get all you fetus lovers to the polls.

Good grief, are you people so blind to not see the reality of the situation?
You are being played like a fiddle by people who pretend to care about fetuses when they really only care about their job security.

Posted by: steve-2304 | May 17, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin wants to deny choice?

Sarah Palin wants to deny reason, science, intelligence, freedom, etc. Why should choice be any different

Posted by: rcc_2000 | May 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Is Sarah Palin a feminist ?

Compare her to the enlightened liberals at
last weeks meeting of the American Association of Pediatricians.

In response to certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.” they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice.

They’re not advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 17, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Until you tell me what the sentence for having an illegal abortion should be, you have no right saying much of anything. If it isn't a serious sentence, then you must concede that there will continue to be many more abortions than were performed before Roe and your pro-life rantings will be exposed as hypocrisy in the extreme.

sooooo? what's the sentence for the mom, and what's the sentence for the doc?

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 17, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin doesn't quite get what the abortion debate in America is really all about. Ruth Marcus has it right. It's about either permitting a legal right of abortion or not permitting a legal right of abortion.

If you want to represent yourself as being pro-life in relation to the legal standing of abortion, then you need to be willing to be assert your unqualified opposition to the legality of abortion as a right of choice.

Posted by: kenger1 | May 17, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a sociopath. A sociopath decides between right and wrong based on what is good or bad for them (alone). Fortunately, she has been removed from any position where she can make that choice for others. Her cause now is simply to make as much money as possible off the gullible (like the Tea Partiers) while working as hard as possible to keep them out of power as well.

Posted by: wmboyd | May 17, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

So choice is important when it comes to women and their babies (men don't have the right, they're subject to whatever they decide), but not for health care, diet, FUNDING of abortion, etc. its not that progresssives have any qualms with eliminating choice, it just needs to be done on their terms.

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave have NOTHING to do with American Liberals.

Posted by: batigol85 | May 17, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Choosing life is the best choice, most would agree, and Sarah Palin is definitely for that!" Posted by: freemarketer

Actually, prevention would be the best choice. How about we focus on that for awhile? Oh, that's right, we can only tell people to not have sex until they get married at 25 or 30, but we can't tell them how to avoid pregnancy and provide access to safe birth control methods. That's right up there with brilliant.

Posted by: Tourist | May 17, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Why yet another story on SaraGump?? When will this end?

Posted by: double07 | May 17, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

When the anti-abortionists realize that sanctity of life extends to ax murderers, child molesters, rapists, and all the rest of the miscreants that are subject to the death penalty, only then will they have a moral leg to stand on. Besides, if abortion were outlawed, we'd return to the back alley, coat hanger abortions of yesteryear. Wouldn't that be nice?

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | May 17, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Legal abortion allows young people to be killed without protection from the homicide laws if they haven't been born yet. It allows some people, therefore, to choose to ignore the rights of others, the same way the "peculiar institution" of slavery gave white people the ability to ignore the rights of those whose skin was dark.

It is those who oppose legal abortion who are the true defenders of equal rights.

Posted by: quadibloc | May 16, 2010 9:13 PM
--------------------------------------

What a bunch of twaddle! By that logic,'young people' are frozen in the fertility labs where they remain entombed in liquid nitrogen. Care to comment?

Posted by: Pillai | May 17, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

umm. why did she amnio on her baby? Was there a need for it?

Posted by: Pillai | May 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

This is exactly WHY abortion is legal:
So that people who have no interest in, or responsibility for a woman's life would ever have any right to control her.

Posted by: lindalovejones | May 17, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Of course Palin is not pro-choice. Neither are her Tea-Party supporters. These people come on as Libertarians until they come out against personal rights. Ron Paul is a libertarian. These tea party types are just republicans backed by the thieves from Texas. No more, no less.By the way, notice Todd hasn't been hanging lately. WHY? because he controls good little Sarah just like all pentacostal men control their women.

Posted by: tlrasnic | May 17, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

adrienne_najjar: "When the anti-abortionists realize that sanctity of life extends to ax murderers, child molesters, rapists, and all the rest of the miscreants that are subject to the death penalty, only then will they have a moral leg to stand on."

But, as I've stated through this thread, I do. Many, many of us do. Why do we need to get caught up in assumptions about each other?

Posted by: edgydc | May 17, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Bingo, Marcus.

Posted by: maf53 | May 17, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The choice should only be the women's. It is up to her, not Sarah Palin's, not any one's. Everyone has an opinion, but it should not be the governments job to choose, what a women should do. It is her life, her body, her mind and her soul. I can not imagine, that it is an easy choice, for any woman to make. But remember it is her choice, and she is entitled to make this choice, and living with it.

Posted by: heidio | May 17, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

She didn't chose to have an abortion. What she did do after finding out is 1) not tell anyone, family members or friends she was pregnant, 2) didn't gain any weight so that at 7 months into pregnancy, no one could have guessed she was pregnant, 3) in late stages of pregnancy, flew to TX and when her water broke, flew back to AK, a distance over 3000 miles, ignoring the risk to the baby, 4) drove from Anchorage back to Wasilla, not stopping at any of the hospitals in Anchorage. Just so the baby would be born in Wasilla?!?!

Posted by: JunoAK | May 17, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

There are so many more intellegent women in this world to listen to than Sarah Palin. The main thing is to listen to yourself. You are much more intellegent about yourself than someone like her. She is becoming jibber jabber.

Posted by: wind-head | May 17, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Supporting abortion is like supporting the Nazi Germany. Both were engaged in the dehumanization and murder of people.

Posted by: onealethia | May 17, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

denying a woman the right to choose an abortion is forced pregnancy, which is morally the same as forced abortion.

forced abortions anyone?

Posted by: johannesrolf | May 17, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin lives in a bubble where no matter what she does, we should just giggle and say "Awww, that Sarah!". She uses her Gidget-like persona to baffle the public. Fortunately, she will never be taken seriously by voters when it comes to matters of political importance. Although she was in a position where she had options during her pregnancy, many young ladies DON'T have that privilege. I don't agree with abortion, but I do believe in pro-choice. What a woman does with her body is between her and her God.

Posted by: skinfreak | May 17, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

The media do love their freaks.


Is that why we are forced daily to read what Sarah Palin's lastest hypocritical opinion is?

Posted by: momof20yo | May 17, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Supporting abortion is like supporting Nazi Germany. Both were engaged in the dehumanization and murder of people.

Posted by: onealethia | May 17, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin? This is her 16th moment--even if you are desperate for something to write about, you are no longer allowed to use her name to fill space. Got it?

Posted by: rusty3 | May 17, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

My pregnancy is not Palin's business. Butt out, Palin, not butt in. Just because you are making a sacrifice with a Down baby, doesn't mean that everybody should make that decision. After all, Palin is not a paragon of motherhood, nor republicanism. Her talent lies in misleading, and fooling the gullible into thinking that what she says makes sense. Incoherence will be her epitaph.

Posted by: rhideokim1 | May 17, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

S.Palin's 15 minutes were up a long time ago. why do people continue to quote her or even listen to her. This woman will do or say whatever she thinks is "good" for her political career. I betcha she does not spend any time with this child.. she just brings him out for photo opts. Sarah needs to go away and stop saying things that she has no clue about because if she did she "as a Christian" she would not be spreading hate and fear..she does not understand that we all will be judged by our intentions and outcomes ..and for her to continue to imply untruths about the Prez just to have something to say with no meaningful basis is accountable behavior.

Posted by: sabrina2 | May 17, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

No one ever seems to respect the fact that Palin is a politician who actually stuck to her principles. Cheap shots from Ruth Marcus can't take that away.

BTW...since when do any of us have a choice to do what we want to our bodies? Should I have a choice, then, to shoot up heroin whenever my wish?

Posted by: diehardlib | May 17, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

No one ever seems to respect the fact that Palin is a politician who actually stuck to her principles. Cheap shots from Ruth Marcus can't take that away.

BTW...since when do any of us have a choice to do what we want to our bodies? Should I have a choice, then, to shoot up heroin whenever my wish?

Posted by: diehardlib | May 17, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Palin never would go to a pregnant woman and tell her she should never abort. She does not have the guts. She is a first class pontificating coward. The type that when faced with reality back off afraid to stand by their convictions.

Coward is thy name Palin.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 17, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

So abortion is murder... so we do fetuses not have a SSN? Why do fetuses not count in HOV lanes? Because they are not human beings yet.

If you want to stop abortion, promote sex education... real sex education and stop stigmitizing sexuality and look to stop to social and economic reasons for abortion in the first place... but then that would require thought...

Not high on the list of abilities for the right wing.

Posted by: dwdave67 | May 17, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

We do not give people the choice even to rob a person, to threaten his or her life by running a red light, and certainly not to kill him or her. If Ruth Marcus wants to claim that abortion is simply a choice, the burden of proof is on her to show that an unborn child is not a person. Unless she can do that, she has no right to write as if the question were merely philosophical. We have a long and sordid history of denying personhood to whole groups of people in order to justify doing the unthinkable and unjustifiable to them. Slaves were considered 2/3 of a person when the framers set up our electoral process.It took a war, years of protest, and, yes, laws making slavery and then discrimination criminal offenses to gain equal treatment for African Americans. Abortion threatens everyone's most fundamental liberties. Furthermore its legalization does have a negative impact on women's choice. 62% of women having abortions report that pressure from others is a significant factor. The law teaches boyfriends that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. It causes social workers to urge abortion, sometimes indirectly threatening loss of benefits if a woman has another child. It causes legislators to neglect providing needed benefits to women and their families. This is not freedom. Even if one is blind enough to believe that the "choice: of one person trumps that of another innocent and helpless person, this is not choice. Sarah Palin may not be the world's most articulate person, but she is right on this matter.

Posted by: artemis3 | May 17, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse


diehardlib wrote: "No one ever seems to respect the fact that Palin is a politician who actually stuck to her principles. Cheap shots from Ruth Marcus can't take that away."

She's a quitter who quit her job she swore to do when the going got a little tough. Sticking to principle? How about the socialism she supported having oil companies give oil profits to the people of Alaska each year because, as Palin says, "after all its there oil"?

diehardlib wrote: "BTW...since when do any of us have a choice to do what we want to our bodies? Should I have a choice, then, to shoot up heroin whenever my wish?"

The crime is not about your body but about a controlled substance. It doesn't matter where you put it, its having it that is the felony. Maybe you should ask whether you have a choice to donate a kidney. You body is yours, not the government's.

I find it hypocritical that conservatives pretend to love freedom then demand the government control your body, well women's bodies, which for conservative men is probably ok, but imagine if the government decided getting a vasectomy should not be allowed. "Keep the government's hands off my body!" these hypocrites would cry. And I would really love to know what the conservative evangelicals think about vasectomies and whether they should be outlawed. Not a peep on this subject from them. Funny that...

Posted by: Fate1 | May 17, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

What choice did the baby make?

Posted by: hmd813 | May 17, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

what most of you mutts don't get is ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. if you don't want an abortion fine, we won't force you. but you don't get to decide for or control, another women - period.

Posted by: submarinerssn774 | May 17, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

But women do have choices. They can choose birth control, they can choose who they are intimate with, they can choose to take EPT (Early Pregnancy Test) kits and pop a "morning after" pill if it comes up positive.

But the choice some women want to make is the choice to kill their unborn child. What can be more selfish.

At some point, women's choices need to transform into responsibilities. If you are 5 or 6 months pregnant, then go the other 3 or 4 months to give your child a chance at life. Infanticide is not right.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | May 17, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

artemis3 wrote: "We do not give people the choice even to rob a person..."

The law says the fetus is not a person, otherwise you could not abort the fetus. You could also claim the fetus as a deduction on taxes right after the pregnancy test shows positive, whether it is carried to term or not. You would have a whole slew of legal issues were fetuses determined to be people with rights, many of which I doubt you have thought through.

artemis3 wrote: "Unless she can do that, she has no right to write as if the question were merely philosophical."

Claiming a fetus is a person is what is philosophical. Now, if you want to argue the government has a right to your body and what is in it, then please, let's hear that argument.

artemis3 wrote: "We have a long and sordid history of denying personhood..."

Oh please, no one is exploiting fetuses. Man, you guys have so many straw-men you love to knock down. But when faced with reality pro-lifers always get silent, like when a woman will die without an abortion, a woman was raped, a woman is 15, the baby is deformed. Who among you has the right to decide what the woman should do? And if the woman has the abortion what will you do? Put her in jail? If you only thought things through a little and considered that the woman has rights as well, rights to her body, rights to her decisions, rights to keep anyone else from interfering with her private decisions, you might think in less absolute terms.

artemis3 wrote: "Abortion threatens everyone's most fundamental liberties."

So the government, controlling your body, is liberty? You should listen to yourself!

artemis3 wrote: "Furthermore its legalization does have a negative impact on women's choice."

Did you really say that? Read what you said again and if it still makes any sort of logical sense you really need to have someone explain why this makes nooooo sense at all.

artemis3 wrote: "62% of women having abortions report that pressure from others is a significant factor..."

And Palin most likely felt pressure from her voodoo church, and Bristol certainly felt pressure from mommy. What is your point? That women cannot make up their own minds? That the government should? That the government should step in as though they were about to commit suicide to protect them from themselves? This is a warped justification.

artemis3 wrote: "This is not freedom. Even if one is blind enough to believe that the "choice: of one person trumps that of another innocent and helpless person, this is not choice."

What you are really saying is that YOUR choice is equal to or greater than the woman's choice. I find that astonishing.

artemis3 wrote: "Sarah Palin may not be the world's most articulate person, but she is right on this matter."

Sarah Palin is a Post Turtle.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 17, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

RealTexan1 wrote: "At some point, women's choices need to transform into responsibilities. If you are 5 or 6 months pregnant, then go the other 3 or 4 months to give your child a chance at life. Infanticide is not right."

Wow, I didn't know you could get an abortion on demand in Texas after the first trimester? Or did you make that up?

Posted by: Fate1 | May 17, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Mommy - why are you letting them hurt ME?

Mommy - why are they poking me and tearing
bit by bit...I was so comfy here!

Mommy - they are KILLING me!

Posted by: RudeIsraeli | May 17, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is a mentally challenged person that has some unknown appeal to equally mentally challenged people.

I am sure that John McCain deeply regrets to have brought this moron to the front of the GOP, adding another nutcase to the likes of Boehner, McConnell, Michelle Bachman; just to mention a few.

Posted by: mackiejw | May 17, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Get a grip....

Posted by: askgees | May 17, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Palin would do best to sit on her porch holding Trig and pointing out which is the way to Russia and trying real hard to mind her *unfinished business* and take care of HER family and leave other people to their decisions that don't involve her.

Sick of her now!
***

Posted by: Evenfoolsarerightsometimes | May 17, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

"On the very remote possibility that Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or some other Republican should succeed Barack Obama as President after 2012, there is a very good chance that Sarah Palin will get nominated to a vacant position as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Her strident and vigorous pro-life stand now is what will propel her to the Supreme Court, and there join the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito.

With her on the Court, Roe v. Wade is bound to fall by the wayside."

Mariano Patalinjug

I'm guessing you don't have a legislative background, Mariano. Not even a Republican president would be able to nominate Sarah Palin, a former half-term governor who has no law background whatever, to the nation's highest court. If that happened, there'd be nothing to stop the next president from nominating the guy who sweeps out the cafeteria, or his hairstylist, or his mother.

Sarah Palin, a Supreme Court Justice. That's just funny.

Posted by: marknesop | May 17, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Blah, blah, blah.

It's all quite clear.

Palin: LOOK AT ME. I MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE. HOORAY FOR ME. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT CHOICE.

It's just that simple.

Posted by: drossi2 | May 17, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

This issue has.... and always will be a "catch 22" one. At least citizen Palins' got 'guts'.
.... "Walk a mile in my shoes" much?
Picture some 15, 16, or 17 year old girl with "one in the oven"....

... Man! ... I miss "Watergate".

Posted by: deepthroat21 | May 17, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

"I respect the convictions of those who believe that abortion is the taking of a human life." Can the Washington Post PLEASE stipulate that abortion results in the death of a nascent human? If this paper (and its weekly newsmagazine) stipulates that the debate over global warming is over, then it should be willing to acquiesce to the true nature of abortion since the science behind that one is even more solid than global warming, hard as it is to believe.

Put aside the fact that the pro-abortion folks cannot even admit what really is behind the "choice" that Ms. Marcus thinks Sarah Palin would deny. Why do pro-abortion folks ALWAYS put forward that ONLY the woman gets to choose the fate of her baby? What about the father? After all, 23/46 of the baby's genetic makeup is the father's. I am tired of fathers being left out of the conversation on this issue. Don't tell me that it ONLY impacts women. Fathers--while certainly not sharing in the physical sacrifices of pregnancy--make huge contributions in raising families and often (or should) have to make tough choices about balancing careers and family life as well. It's time men and fathers stood up to make their voices heard in this debate. I would wager that the vast majority of fathers or would-be fathers are not the Peter Griffins depicted in the TV world.

Posted by: ab_7502 | May 17, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

"Noacoler wrote: A fetus in the womb is not a child. This consistent use of misleading and prejudicial language is an indicator that the prolifers don't really have an argument."

###############################

Yes, "Noacoler", I KNOW the whole "semantics" game, where people play with words so they don't have to think of all the "legal" murders going on in our supposedly "civilized" society! I'm a Registered Nurse! I have held many of these miscarried "NOT A CHILD", "REAL babies", with eyes and ears, arms, hands, legs, genitalia, fingers and toes in my hand! Until YOU have done the same, do not delude yourself because you have murdered one of your own or because you need to feel less guilt when you think of the murders. Regardless of what the popular notion is, to ease the conscience of lazy people who use murder for birth control, the fetus IS a baby, and abortion IS murder! I have seen and felt wherof I speak. MOST people have not!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 18, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

"marknesop wrote: "On the very remote possibility that Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or some other Republican should succeed Barack Obama as President after 2012, there is a very good chance that Sarah Palin will get nominated to a vacant position as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court."

#########################

Get a grip, Mark! Sarah Palin, the evil rabble rouser without a brain or a conscience, BARELY graduated from college, MUCH LESS, law school!!

It took this evil airhead 5 different colleges in order to finally find one with low enough standards that would give her a diploma! Have you ever heard this mistake speak?? A Supreme Court Justice needs a BRAIN, AND a law degree, among much higher QUALITY standards than Sarah palin could EVER dream of reaching!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 18, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

"johannesrolf wrote: denying a woman the right to choose an abortion is forced pregnancy, which is morally the same as forced abortion."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have that a "LITTLE" wrong, "johannesrolf"! "Forced PREGNANCY" would be more in the category of "rape". A woman who uses abortion as her type of "birth control" is a "murderer" because the fetus "IS" a "REAL baby"! A live baby and a play on words, called "semantics", doesn't change the FACT!


Posted by: Maerzie | May 18, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"johntu wrote: A woman does have a choice. There are lots of birth control pills and devices out there. They may not stop all the pregnancies but they should be considered by sexually active females. And the males should wear protection. The pro-choice argument could be stopped up front. Forty million legal abortions--this is an atrocity."

#############################

How right you are, John! But obviously, "murder"(or "killing"~~SAME thing!) is easier than THINKING AHEAD and being "RESPONSIBLY ADULT"!!

Posted by: Maerzie | May 18, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"ONLY the woman gets to choose the fate of her baby? What about the father?"

Latex or vinyl sock first, sex after. Call it a backup plan.

Posted by: Skowronek | May 18, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"I'm a Registered Nurse! I have held many of these miscarried "NOT A CHILD", "REAL babies", with eyes and ears, arms, hands, legs, genitalia, fingers and toes in my hand! Until YOU have done the same, do not delude yourself because you have murdered one of your own or because you need to feel less guilt when you think of the murders."

Then you realize that "miscarriage" is a layman's term for spontaneous abortion. In other words, God killed them (or nature). Given how many occur, many before women are even aware they may be pregnant, God performs more abortions than anybody. At all stages. Including blastocyte.

It is helpful to ask how often pregnancy occurs on average each cycle. Studies looking at very sensitive pregnancy tests suggest that pregnancy will occur in at least 60% of natural cycles in fertile couples.

The risk of miscarriage decreases as pregnancy progresses. It is possible that as many as 50% of pregnancies miscarry before implantation in the womb occurs. Early after implantation, pregnancy loss rate is about 30% (i.e. this is still before a pregnancy is clinically recognised). After a pregnancy may be clinically recognised (between days 35-50), about 25% will end in miscarriage. The risk of miscarriage decreases dramatically after the 8th week as the weeks go by.

Posted by: Skowronek | May 18, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

About 80% of miscarriages occur within the first trimester.

Causes
•In the first trimester, embryonic causes of spontaneous abortion are the predominant etiology and account for 80-90% of miscarriages
•Genetic abnormalities within the embryo (ie, chromosomal abnormalities) are the most common cause of spontaneous abortion and account for 50-65% of all miscarriages.
◦The most common single chromosomal anomaly is 45,X karyotype, with an incidence of 14.6%.
◦Trisomies are the single largest group of chromosomal anomalies and account for approximately one half of all anomalies associated with miscarriage. Trisomy 16 is the most common trisomy found.
◦Approximately 20% of genetic abnormalities are triploidies.
•Teratogenic and mutagenic factors may play a role, but quantification is difficult.
•Maternal causes of spontaneous miscarriage include the following:
◦Genetic: Maternal age is directly related to the aneuploidy risk (>30% in people aged 40 y). Couples with recurrent miscarriages have a 2-3% incidence of a parental chromosomal anomaly (ie, balanced translocation).
◦Structural abnormalities of the reproductive tract include the following:
■Congenital uterine defects (particularly uterine septum)
■Fibroids
■Cervical incompetence
•Iatrogenic causes (ie, Asherman syndrome)
•Acute maternal factors include the following:
◦Corpus luteum deficiency
◦Active infection (eg, rubella virus, cytomegalovirus, Listeria infection, toxoplasmosis)
•Chronic maternal health factors include the following:
◦Polycystic ovary syndrome
◦Poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (A successful pregnancy requires much tighter control.)
◦Renal disease
◦Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)
◦Untreated thyroid disease
◦Severe hypertension
◦Antiphospholipid syndrome
•Exogenous factors include the following:
◦Tobacco
◦Alcohol
◦Cocaine
◦Caffeine (high doses)
•Independent risk factors for a spontaneous miscarriage include the following:3,4,5 ◦Advanced age
◦Extremes of age
◦Feeling stressed
◦Advanced paternal age
•Symptoms of vaginal bleeding but not abdominal pain are associated with increased risk of miscarriage. One paper suggests that miscarriage can occur in about 50% of patients who present with threatened abortion.

Posted by: Skowronek | May 18, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote: "A fetus in the womb is not a child. This consistent use of misleading and prejudicial language is an indicator that the prolifers don't really have an argument."

Looking at the etymology of the word, as well as the images of the being the word represents, I have to disagree.

Posted by: edgydc | May 18, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Fate 1 says the fact that Roe vs. Wade does not recognize the unborn as persons with rights means they are not. Well, the Supreme Court, in the case of Dred Scott, said that blacks were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." As we all know from the history of Dred Scott, such Supreme Court opinions can be and are reversed. Second, legalized abortion, simply by denying the personhood and rights of a portion of the human race, does threaten fundamental liberties, as fundamental as the right to life, not only of the unborn but of the born. My liberties are far less threatened by the fact that every state prohibits murder and provides criminal penalties for it than they would be if murder were made a legal choice. I can recover from a pregnancy, no matter what the circumstances, but I cannot recover from being murdered. Be very, very afraid of the legal denial of personhood to anyone, because you may be the next person labeled as not a person and denied any rights. Today, for example, the very sick and infants, who cannot speak for themselves to give consent, are being euthanized in the Netherlands, just as they were euthanized in Nazi Germany. You call Sarah Palin a "post turtle", whatever that is. I think she is a person with free speech rights. Why not dialogue rather than call names?

Posted by: artemis3 | May 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

You know, her hypocrisy started far earlier in the process. She underwent amniocentesis. The procedure itself can cause an abortion (miscarriage for the squeamish), and if she truly wasn't going to revisit the idea of an abortion more than once, why bother?

Posted by: Skowronek | May 18, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

We are faced with choices everyday. Some of those choices are life changing, some of the choices change someones life.

Those that use that choice without forethought and with selfish reasons, need not have that choice but once. The second time that choice is used for "birth control" you sterilize the man and the woman.

Amazing how acting in an irresponsible nature will then stop.

Like neutering your pet.

Posted by: klassylady25 | May 18, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company