Palin on abortion

[Puppycow]

What the public thinks about abortion

What Sarah Palin thinks about abortion

I heard that Palin was pro-life, but I didn't realize that she is even to the right of McCain because she believes that even victims of rape and incest should not be allowed to choose to have an abortion. This is an extreme position. Very few people have such an extreme position as this.

Why should a rape victim be forced to carry a fetus to term?
Who is Sarah Palin to make that decision for others and force them to obey her religious views?

[Cain]

Quote:

Why should a rape victim be forced to carry a fetus to term?

Well, at least she has a morally consistent stance. I have never had much respect for the people who say "abortion is murder... unless the baby's father is a bastard." Her view makes more sense given the "pro-life" side's (unhinged) premises. A proposition that would have made her view law was defeated in even South Dakota a couple years ago, so yeah, this won't play.

[Puppycow]

I have more sympathy for the mushy middle. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it is going to be arbitrary to a certain degree and based on some kind of unfalsifiable assumptions about life and souls (or lack thereof) and when a person becomes a person, etc. I don't see a totally clear line, although the moment of birth I suppose is a clear if somewhat arbitray line. Viability depends on the current state of medical technology.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I have more sympathy for the mushy middle. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it is going to be arbitrary to a certain degree and based on some kind of unfalsifiable assumptions about life and souls (or lack thereof) and when a person becomes a person, etc. I don't see a totally clear line, although the moment of birth I suppose is a clear if somewhat arbitray line. Viability depends on the current state of medical technology.

I only have more sympathy for rightists going to the middle because it leans more towards my stance that any mother should be able to abort any child.

But I agree with Cain, denying abortions to raped women is a much more consistent and defensible stance for a serious pro-lifer than giving them a free pass. Either the fetuses have inalienable rights that trump all mother's wishes or they don't. At least Palin has taken a rational stance (well, after the irrationality that fetuses should have such rights at all).

The middle is illogical. Pro-lifers and pro-choices should be extreme positions, because fetus-rights is a fairly binary question. Applying clauses and exceptions is merely waffling.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

I only have more sympathy for rightists going to the middle because it leans more towards my stance that any mother should be able to abort any child.

But I agree with Cain, denying abortions to raped women is a much more consistent and defensible stance for a serious pro-lifer than giving them a free pass. Either the fetuses have inalienable rights that trump all mother's wishes or they don't. At least Palin has taken a rational stance (well, after the irrationality that fetuses should have such rights at all).

The middle is illogical. Pro-lifers and pro-choices should be extreme positions, because fetus-rights is a fairly binary question. Applying clauses and exceptions is merely waffling.

This seems like saying that everything is either black or white.

Quote:

Either the fetuses have inalienable rights that trump all mother's wishes or they don't.

OR, fetuses have SOME rights that trump SOME rights of the mother and the mother has SOME rights that trump SOME rights of the fetus.

You can make a list of rights for each and assign an arbitrary priority to each of those rights.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This seems like saying that everything is either black or white.

It should be. It's easy to be consistent on this if one is willing to live with it and defend it. That's what Palin is doing.

Quote:

OR, fetuses have SOME rights that trump SOME rights of the mother and the mother has SOME rights that trump SOME rights of the fetus.

You can make a list of rights for each and assign an arbitrary priority to each of those rights.

Yeah, if you want your argument to make no sense. We'll just have to disagree on this part for the sake of brevity.

I'm curious though why, if abortion arguments are so inherently arbitrary, you'd describe Palin's view as "extreme"? Do you mean vs. most of the population, or that she has an actually extreme argument?

I didn't answer the rhetorical questions before, so here goes, pretending I'm Palin:

Quote:

Why should a rape victim be forced to carry a fetus to term?

Because the fetus is a living human with a soul and killing it would be murder.

Quote:

Who is Sarah Palin to make that decision for others and force them to obey her religious views?

I'm the governor. Could be the VP. If people elect me, they have to live with my doing what I think is right, and what I think those who elected me believe is right. My stance on this issue is no different in this respect than any other stance, no matter how religious or non-religious. If you don't want me pushing this issue, vote against me.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This seems like saying that everything is either black or white.

It's making the best out of a bogus assumption. There are also practical problems associated with allowing exceptions in the case of rape. Many women do not want to report such an attack to the police; other women will falsely claim they were attacked in order to have an abortion, which makes it still more difficult for the women who were actually victimized.

Quote:

OR, fetuses have SOME rights that trump SOME rights of the mother and the mother has SOME rights that trump SOME rights of the fetus.

This sounds reasonable enough, but maybe that's because you're imposing an otherwise more rational view onto an irrational one. Most people do believe that the mother's interests trump the fetus' early on in the pregnancy, though the fetus' interests trump the mother's later in the pregnancy, in which case we are normally talking about stages of development (and when it becomes a person).

Suppose a woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and because she's pro-life she decides to carry the pregnancy to term. Her growing belly becomes an unavoidable, unbearable reminder of the attack, and at 6(?)-7(?)-8(?) months she says she cannot handle it any longer and wants to terminate the pregnancy. According to most people's beliefs, this is worse than if she had killed the life inside of her as soon as possible. So why is it worse? It's typically deemed more problematic because the fetus is more developed (more likely a person), but this is not a moral consideration for the pro-lifer because zygote = embryo = fetus = infant.

Another moral consideration is the inconvenience to the mother. In this context you have to consider what amount of distress allows her to justifiably kill an otherwise "sacred" and "innocent" human life. For most people there really is no "mushy middle" -- the only time it's justifiable is when another similarly valuable life is at stake. In this case a non-arbitrary exception would be if the mother's life was in danger, which I believe S. Dakota took into account.

[corplinx]

I'm don't really think personal views about abortion are all that important to being president. They really don't have much say in the matter despite all the bluster about supreme court justices.

Disclaimer: I am pro-choice, but from the past 28 years of watching politics have come to the conclusion that abortion views shouldn't be an issue anymore. Furthermore, I think the GOP/Dems play a sick game of making those views an issue and pretending they can either dismantle or protect abortion rights.

[Pookster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

What the public thinks about abortion

What Sarah Palin thinks about abortion

I heard that Palin was pro-life, but I didn't realize that she is even to the right of McCain because she believes that even victims of rape and incest should not be allowed to choose to have an abortion. This is an extreme position. Very few people have such an extreme position as this.

Why should a rape victim be forced to carry a fetus to term?
Who is Sarah Palin to make that decision for others and force them to obey her religious views?

According to the Time poll at the link, only 10% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. She seems to be bucking the odds. But, the next question indicates that only 20% would not vote for a candidate with a position different than their own. So, abortion is not a high priority issue with a big majority of voters.

However, the Fox poll showed that 70% believed abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.

[Whiplash]

It's a crying shame that the killing of children is so accepted that we can even be having these kinds of arguments. I weep for humanity. I wonder how many decades, centuries or even millenia it'll take for us, as a people, to wake up to this deplorable behavior.

That said, as I said before, I do not support changing laws. Nor do I care much of the position of politicians in consideration of voting for them. I just feel, in my heart, that abortion is wrong, and that it's terrible that so many people can completely rationalize it away in such a manner. Deplorable.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

It's a crying shame that the killing of children is so accepted that we can even be having these kinds of arguments. I weep for humanity. I wonder how many decades, centuries or even millenia it'll take for us, as a people, to wake up to this deplorable behavior.

That said, as I said before, I do not support changing laws. Nor do I care much of the position of politicians in consideration of voting for them. I just feel, in my heart, that abortion is wrong, and that it's terrible that so many people can completely rationalize it away in such a manner. Deplorable.

The great thing is, if you don't agree with abortion then you don't have to get one. Ain't liberty great?

[Tailgater]

Does the abortion issue even matter anymore past grandstanding for those votes from a minority?

[BenBurch]

corplinx, you'd be wrong on that. The ONLY reason Bush has not gotten Roe v Wade overturned in his 8 years is that he lacks two votes on the SC. This court has already shown that Stare Decisis will not constrain its rulings, and if Bush could have gotten two appointments (which the next President surely will) then it would have been all over for abortion rights and for BIRTH CONTROL. Because if you read the propaganda the pro-choice evangelicals put out there, as I have, it becomes clear that they intend the overturn of Roe v Wade to be extended to include the birth control pill, which they consider to be an abortifactant, IUDs (ditto,) and naturally any of the morning-after pills. And I do not doubt they would find some means later to attack condoms, diaphragms and spermicide.

-Ben

[Mark Felt]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Why should a rape victim be forced to carry a fetus to term?

What's the biological difference between a rape baby, a baby of first generation incest, and a "normal" baby?

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Who is Sarah Palin to make that decision for others and force them to obey her religious views?

Who are you to say that it's better for someone to die than for another person to be pregnant? Who is anyone?

(Not religious)

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

corplinx, you'd be wrong on that. The ONLY reason Bush has not gotten Roe v Wade overturned in his 8 years is that he lacks two votes on the SC. This court has already shown that Stare Decisis will not constrain its rulings, and if Bush could have gotten two appointments (which the next President surely will) then it would have been all over for abortion rights and for BIRTH CONTROL. Because if you read the propaganda the pro-choice evangelicals put out there, as I have, it becomes clear that they intend the overturn of Roe v Wade to be extended to include the birth control pill, which they consider to be an abortifactant, IUDs (ditto,) and naturally any of the morning-after pills. And I do not doubt they would find some means later to attack condoms, diaphragms and spermicide.

-Ben

This is exactly the kind of emo politicking I was talking about. I've heard it since I was old enough to understand the evening news. Both sides do it. The evangelicals always promise they will overturn abortion. They usually predict the rapture every 4 years or so as well.

[Tailgater]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

corplinx, you'd be wrong on that. The ONLY reason Bush has not gotten Roe v Wade overturned in his 8 years is that he lacks two votes on the SC. This court has already shown that Stare Decisis will not constrain its rulings, and if Bush could have gotten two appointments (which the next President surely will) then it would have been all over for abortion rights and for BIRTH CONTROL. Because if you read the propaganda the pro-choice evangelicals put out there, as I have, it becomes clear that they intend the overturn of Roe v Wade to be extended to include the birth control pill, which they consider to be an abortifactant, IUDs (ditto,) and naturally any of the morning-after pills. And I do not doubt they would find some means later to attack condoms, diaphragms and spermicide.

-Ben

And Republicans would become a third party or cease to exist the following election.

[boloboffin]

Abortion is now one of the top two issues of the campaign.

Quote:

Obama’s new radio ad, airing widely in at least seven swing states, tells voters McCain “will make abortion illegal.” It’s airing as McCain courts female voters with the addition of the staunchly anti-abortion governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to his ticket.

Democrats had, until now, sought to appeal to women primarily on economic issues such as health care and workplace discrimination; abortion rights were hardly mentioned at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last week. But women’s rights groups have been urging Obama to attack McCain on the issue, pointing to polling showing that some women who support McCain think he supports abortion rights. In fact, the Arizona senator has long supported a ban on abortions, with exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and for pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother. Palin has an even firmer anti-abortion stance: She would require rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term.

“Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That's why this election is so important,” says the nurse-practitioner who narrates Obama’s ad. “John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That's what women need to understand. That's how high the stakes are.”

An announcer then claims that “as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal,” before playing an exchange on "Meet the Press" in which McCain told moderator Tim Russert that he favors “a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.”

The other issue, of course, is the Iraq War. Obama is not playing around anymore. The religious right sees that they can finally topple Roe v. Wade with John McCain, and Obama wants everyone to know it. In fact, it's time to start talking Griswold v. Connecticut^WP. Let's make that my first question for Sarah Palin: should a married couple be allowed to use contraceptives in the privacy of their own home?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Tailgater

And Republicans would become a third party or cease to exist the following election.

The opposite, I think they would put so much fear into the opposition that they would have a period of dominance.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by corplinx

This is exactly the kind of emo politicking I was talking about. I've heard it since I was old enough to understand the evening news. Both sides do it. The evangelicals always promise they will overturn abortion. They usually predict the rapture every 4 years or so as well.

The difference is that they never had the possibility of getting the votes until now.

[Pookster]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Abortion is now one of the top two issues of the campaign.

It can be one of the issues, but it better not be one of his top issues to push. It's just not high priority for most voters, as the polls would indicate.

Focus primarily on the economy, health care, and education. It's what people care about right now. Know your audience.

[Tailgater]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The opposite, I think they would put so much fear into the opposition that they would have a period of dominance.

Uh, people vote, and last time I checked, they were not afraid to do so. I don't follow your post.

[TriskettheKid]

I've got to say, I'm having a hard time seeing how Palin's stance is morally consistent.

She's still pro-death penalty, right?

How does that work? Anti-choice and pro-death penalty, to me, seem to be two contradictory positions.

[Mark Felt]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I've got to say, I'm having a hard time seeing how Palin's stance is morally consistent.

She's still pro-death penalty, right?

How does that work? Anti-choice and pro-death penalty, to me, seem to be two contradictory positions.

They're not, honestly. It's only contradictory if you qualify that all human life is sacred, rather than all innocent human life, which I think is the distinction being made.

[boloboffin]

What if innocence gets decided along the riverbanks of the blood of Christ?

[Mark Felt]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

What if innocence gets decided along the riverbanks of the blood of Christ?

Is this a euphemism for menstruation?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Mark Felt

Is this a euphemism for menstruation?

Only if you are a Thelemite.

[TriskettheKid]

I think Palin's stance is a bit contradictory, still.

I just don't see how one be anti-choice and pro-death penalty, all the while talking about how society must protect human life.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I think Palin's stance is a bit contradictory, still.

I just don't see how one be anti-choice and pro-death penalty, all the while talking about how society must protect human life.

I think that is especially true when one realizes that we send actually innocent men to Death Row sometimes. Here in Illinois our last Governor (a Republican, mind you) commuted all death sentences because he found so many irregularities in the process of capital convictions in our state.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Mark Felt

Is this a euphemism for menstruation?

Only if Jesus had a uterus.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Only if Jesus had a uterus.

Are you saying he couldn't have had one had he chosen to?

[Pookster]

Some polling info I just came across ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...men/index.html

Quote:

A recent survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that the issue of choice can have a large impact on the election.

The poll, conducted May 29-June 8, showed: Pro-choice is an issue that swings key blocs of women voters to Obama's side.

Obama gains 13 points among pro-choice independent women -- who make up 9 percent of the sample -- and 9 points among pro-choice Republican women, who account for 5 percent of the sample, according to the poll.

"Among pro-choice independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care," according to the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/NARAL poll report.

Interesting.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I've got to say, I'm having a hard time seeing how Palin's stance is morally consistent.

She's still pro-death penalty, right?

How does that work? Anti-choice and pro-death penalty, to me, seem to be two contradictory positions.

Many of us happen to think that the life of a precious, innocent child is worth considerably more than that of a convicted murderer.

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Many of us happen to think that the life of a precious, innocent child is worth considerably more than that of a convicted murderer.

If you are willing to accept the legal implications inherent in naming fetuses "precious, innocent children," then I will accept that values of their respective lives are different.

ETA:

Regardless, the stance you are pushing, that the value is different, completely nullifies the morally consistent argument mentioned in this topic.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Many of us happen to think that the life of a precious, innocent child is worth considerably more than that of a convicted murderer.

And the rest of us recognize that referring to a fetus as a "precious, innocent child" makes as much sense as referring to a BMW as a "small, furry creature."

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

The middle is illogical. Pro-lifers and pro-choices should be extreme positions, because fetus-rights is a fairly binary question. Applying clauses and exceptions is merely waffling.

Hardly a binary question. For one thing, the definition of "fetus" is quite variable. Most anti-choice people don't have any problem with fertility clinics which destroy fertilized embryos. Of course, there are questions about the definition of "what is a person".

Then there is the question of "rights". Do children have the same rights as adults? No, of course not. Children gain more rights as they get older. To say that a fetus has the same rights as any other organism possessing human DNA is equally ludicrous.

So it ain't exactly binary. There are many many questions, not just one.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

I've got to say, I'm having a hard time seeing how Palin's stance is morally consistent.

She's still pro-death penalty, right?

How does that work? Anti-choice and pro-death penalty, to me, seem to be two contradictory positions.

So pro-choice and anti-death penalty are also contradictory positions?

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So pro-choice and anti-death penalty are also contradictory positions?

Depends on the argument used to support such positions, yes.

I'm sorry, I should have qualified that the same holds true for the opposite, anti-choice and pro-death penalty, position.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Many of us happen to think that the life of a precious, innocent child is worth considerably more than that of a convicted murderer.

Now, consider the life of a wrongfully-convicted man sentenced to die for a murder he did not commit.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

The middle is illogical. Pro-lifers and pro-choices should be extreme positions, because fetus-rights is a fairly binary question. Applying clauses and exceptions is merely waffling.

Depends you can qualify that if the mother intentionaly placed them in that situation or not. In the case of rape the mother did not make a decision that resulted in that situation.

That is important to some arguements of when the fetus's rights trump the mothers.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Depends on the argument used to support such positions, yes.

I'm sorry, I should have qualified that the same holds true for the opposite, anti-choice and pro-death penalty, position.

They're only opposites if you portray them all as the furthest extreme of each position. I don't know many pro-death penalty people who think a person should be executed the day after the guilty verdict. I don't know many pro-choice people who believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion the day before she is to give birth.