# Palins daughter's pregnancy GDG



## i_willie12 (Apr 11, 2008)

Will Palins daughter's pregnancy affect the voting for their ticket??? I feel that it will, that alot of people will not be able to get past the thought of the VP or President having a daughter that is with child.

NOTHING ATTACKING just wanta see how people feel.


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

Won't stop me in the least


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

My Mom had a child. Actually three. 

Does it really matter? 

Mom was pregnant with my sister while in high school. They kicked her out of school. Then, because she was kicked out, my grandpa kicked her out.(old school preacher man) She moved in with Dad's family on the turkey farm. 

Dad finished college while raising my sister and working on the family farm then, had a 43 year career with Boeing. Mom went back to school, got her engineering degree and worked as a flight test engineer at Boeing for 24 years. She then was elected to represent SPEEA Union. Met will the President of Boeing and Mr. Hoffa while negotiating a new SPEEA contract in Chicago.

Having a child never out of wedlock and at a young age never tarnished her morals, ambition and intelligence. My parents were excellent role models and great people. Because of the early struggles, I think it made them work harder and appreciate EVERYTHING they achieved. 

We never lived in a trailer or experienced anything less than a good upbringing. 

Now I ask, does it really matter? 

Paul


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

Should be a non-issue other than reflecting on the GOP's position regarding sex-ed and contraception as well as showing what a method abstinnce is, but there are no non-issues anymore...seems like every media outlet turns into the Enquirer once political season rolls around...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

No more than Obama's longtime friendship with a Weather Underground terrorist whose mission in life is to overthrow the US government.

That doesn't seem to bother Democrats....why would the pregnant child of a woman with a mind of her own change someone's vote?????????

kg


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

i_willie12 said:


> Will Palins daughter's pregnancy affect the voting for their ticket??? I feel that it will, that alot of people will not be able to get past the thought of the VP or President having a daughter that is with child.
> 
> NOTHING ATTACKING just wanta see how people feel.


People who "can't get past the thought of the VP or President having a daughter that is with child" shouldn't be allowed to vote. If that's what they think is important about this presidential election, God help us.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

The way that she handles the situation, not the situation itself, could reveal something about her character, and contribute to someone's decision. I think she is handling it well, it may end up helping more than hurting.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Typical of an election here in America. Nothing but discussion about social/cultural issues and personality.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Bud said:


> The way that she handles the situation, not the situation itself, could reveal something about her character, and contribute to someone's decision. I think she is handling it well, it may end up helping more than hurting.


Dead-on bullseye!

And as I said elsewhere, we can also read more about Governor Palin as a parent based on how her daughter dealt with it. The fact that her daughter -- 1. did NOT hide the pregnancy from her parents; 2. has decided to carry it to term and not abort; 3. has decided to keep it, and 4. is engaged to the father of the child, speaks volumes about the Governor's job as a parent, in my opinion.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

So who's running for VP- Bristol? NO, so leave her personal  issues out of it. It's not like it couldn't happen to any of Obama's kids later down the road.


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

What it shows me is that Palin and her family are humans with problems just like the rest of us.

The fact that the kid made a mistake is no big deal (who here is going to start casting stones?)

It amazes me that the Dems and their media are making an issue. Aren't unwed moms a HUGE part of their base. 

How do they cast stones at Palin's daughter when their own candidate is the product of an unwed 18 yr old and his dad ditched them?

It just won't work.

I sure as heck won't give up my rights to hunt or bear arms simply because the Palins are as human as I am.


----------



## BIG DOG (Apr 17, 2003)

she still has my vote


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Ken Newcomb said:


> It amazes me that the Dems and their media are making an issue. Aren't unwed moms a HUGE part of their base.


I don't think that Dems are in favor of teen pregnancy, and I doubt it's a constituency to pander to. That's just foolish. I think what they are trying to make an issue is that abstinence only education doesn't necessarily work.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Jesus' mom wasn't married either.

(May as well throw some religion in here).

I personally don't like debating either one.

ml


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

i_willie12 said:


> Will Palins daughter's pregnancy affect the voting for their ticket??? I feel that it will, that alot of people will not be able to get past the thought of the VP or President having a daughter that is with child.


If that were true of me, then I would be confessing I had too little rationale for voting for the McCain/Palin ticket anyway. 

I was a nurse when my daughter became pregnant out of wedlock. The day before I learned of it I was a competent nurse. I still was the day after. 

My patients received first rate care both before and after it happened. My daughter's indiscretion and subsequent pregnancy had no impact on my capacity to perform competently as a nurse. I see no logical reason why Gov. Palin's daughter's pregnancy should impact her performance in puplic office.

The impact is purely a matter of political bias, and sewer-level attack strategies by oposing forces who have nothing else to run on. 

Evan


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

It won't change the minds of 'the decideds', but may have an affect on 'the undecideds'. It's not this one issue, though, as Palin has a lot of other problems that concern people. 

The pregnancy is relevant, like it or not, though. Palin and McCain are both on the record as being against sex ed, unless it is 'abstinence only' sex ed. But, if Palin can't get the 'abstinence only' message to work for her own daughter, why does she think it will work for everybody else? Bristol Palin is a highly ironic and symbolic example of another failed Republican policy. You can make that point, and still applaud her decision to 'do the right thing' once she became pregnant. 

When I first heard about the Palin pick, I thought it would be great at swaying folks like my father -- hunter, NRA member, and undecided about who he is going to vote for. He has never voted for a Democrat for president, but has gotten fed up with the Bush policies. I finally spoke with him about it yesterday, and it turns out I was correct that it did sway him, but incorrect about which way it swayed him. He said he is going to vote for Obama now. 

The reasons he cited -- 1) She's in over her head (or, as he told me "I think she's probably good for Alaska, but she's not up to this job") 2) It doesn't look like McCain thought this one out, and it indicates he doesn't make good decisions 3) It is obvious that McCain selected her not because she is the best person for the job, but because he is pandering to women and evangelicals 4) Quote: "If she can't get her own family in order she doesn't have any business running for Vice President". 

He had made up his mind before the pregnancy story came out, but it was just icing on the cake for him.


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

Buzz said:


> I don't think that Dems are in favor of teen pregnancy, and I doubt it's a constituency to pander to. That's just foolish. I think what they are trying to make an issue is that abstinence only education doesn't necessarily work.


I don't think they are in favor of teen pregnancy either but unwed mother's are a large part of the people they pander to. Thus it is foolish for them to insinuate that an out of wedlock pregnancy makes you and your family horrible.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

BP,She's not up for the job, but Obama is? How do you figure? How do you know what kind of order her family is in? Her daughter got pregnant. Happens to the best of people


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

backpasture said:


> The pregnancy is relevant, like it or not, though. Palin and McCain are both on the record as being against sex ed, unless it is 'abstinence only' sex ed. But, if Palin can't get the 'abstinence only' message to work for her own daughter, why does she think it will work for everybody else? Bristol Palin is a highly ironic and symbolic example of another failed Republican policy. You can make that point, and still applaud her decision to 'do the right thing' once she became pregnant.


 Let's test the logic... I teach my kids not to steal, but while a youngster, my son takes something from the store. Let's not teach honesty, because someone slipped up? Is that what you are advocating? No, I took him back to the store, and he and the owner worked out the problem. Sarah's daughter and her Fiancé are working out this one. Our liberal society, I understand thinks stealing is only wrong if you get caught, and then the problem is stupidity, not honesty.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Palin and McCain are both on the record as being against sex ed, unless it is 'abstinence only' sex ed. But, if Palin can't get the 'abstinence only' message to work for her own daughter, why does she think it will work for everybody else?


Maybe because they are intelligent enough to know one case does not make or break the whole system?

That argument only works if at the schools where condoms are handed out like candy it showed no pregnancies either. But that is also not true.

Neither system is perfect. Both are going to be shown to be generally effective, not absolutely effective.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Greg E said:


> BP,She's not up for the job, but Obama is? How do you figure? How do you know what kind of order her family is in? Her daughter got pregnant. Happens to the best of people


I was quoting what my father said. It's a perception that is out there. The question was whether or not the pregnancy will affect someone's vote, and I think it will. My father's opinion is the only feedback I have heard from a previously 'undecided' voter - and from one who has a history of voting Republican. The story doesn't change my vote at all.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

I just have one question here....since people have insinuated that proper sex ed would eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

Did John Edwards educate himself on the proper tactics to ensure safe sex? 

Sex ed will not solve this problem. I grew up in an incredibly liberal school system where we began our sex education in 5th grade and had extensive courses every few years complete with assemblies, round table discussions, etc and guess what???? We had many students "in trouble" and we also had an outbreak of STD in our school my junior year. 

Kids are kids. Educate them all you want on drinking and driving, drugs, sex etc but in the end they will do what they want to do.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Hey Amiable,

Do you have any place I could check the stats on abstinence only sex ed effectiveness? 

I have a couple of young kids (way too young for THE TALK) but it is always on Dad's mind. I would've never believed abstinence only sex ed would be effective based purely on my own experiences at that age. 

I promise this is just out of a desire for information and will not be used against you in the kangaroo court of RTF. 

Thanks 

Brian


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I have been planning to vote for Senator McCain or whoever won the GOP nomination, so it does nothing to make me less certain that GOP is the way to go. I must say this about Gov Palin, she is quite obviously a woman, if she were a guy she would have a pair of great big brass ones that clang when she walks. I really like this lady, she has chutzpah.


----------



## Alan Sandifer (Oct 17, 2007)

She made a mistake that thousands have made , but since her mother is running for the VP of the republican party ,,,,would you have her tared and feathered ,,at least she is going to marry the childs father .

Obama's mother never married his father ,,,,,so why would you make such a big deal out of Palins daughter ,,,after all she does know (WHO) the father is and will marry him before the child is born .


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> Do you have any place I could check the stats on abstinence only sex ed effectiveness?
> 
> I have a couple of young kids (way too young for THE TALK) but it is always on Dad's mind. I would've never believed abstinence only sex ed would be effective based purely on my own experiences at that age.
> Thanks
> ...


Brain,

There are a couple of fundamental problems with this line of thinking, and they've lead a great many people to think along flawed paths. 

The notion that _any_ government sponsored program in any format is _the_ solution to unwanted pregnancies & STD's is, by itself, avoiding a far better solution...
...and also misses a very important principle; that no amount of education of any sort will save anyone who does not employ it.
The old axiom that "Knowledge is power" is flawed in that same way. Knowledge is only powerful when it's combined with action. 

You're concerned about your children. That's good. The best sex education they'll get will come from _you_, not some government school. Abstinence is a practice that clearly works every time it's tried.

Evan


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

usma65 said:


> backpasture said:
> 
> 
> > 4) Quote: "If she can't get her own family in order she doesn't have any business running for Vice President".
> ...


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

usma65 said:


> Are either you or your dad aware that Obama has one brother living in a cardboard box in Kenya, another, Raila, is a radical Islamic terrorist and his cousin, Odingo, is running for president of Kenya and has approved the killing of Christians in Kenya? Go to Odingo's website. It is very interesting. Guess what platform he is running on.......CHANGE !! That's right, Change. Recently Obama went to Kenya to support Odingo.
> I'll tell you and you dad one thing....this man is dangereous and no more qualified to be President of this country than Benedict Arnold !!


Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you read it on some website, or is it your own invention?

You are probably talking about Raila Odinga. (That's one person, not two). He is a politician (if you can call him that) in Kenya. He CLAIMS to be a distant cousin of Obama, but there is nothing that proves that, and Obama denies it. He only made the claim after he lost an election. Yes, Obama's half brother was found in Kenya, but he doesn't appear to be any sort of radical. 

Interestingly, Dick Cheney is distant cousin of Obama. Have a theory on that one?

You should check out snopes if you want the actual truth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp

You've just set the bar for wildly innaccurate information, hair-brained conspiracies and fantastic leaps in logic. Congratulations.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

*This is the latest news...*

*Levi Johnston to join Palin family at convention*

*Bristol Palin's boyfriend left Alaska Tuesday morning*











updated 30 minutes ago

WASILLA, Alaska - Bristol Palin's boyfriend plans to join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the convention in Minnesota.
Levi Johnston's mother said her 18-year-old son left Alaska on Tuesday morning to join the Palin family in St. Paul.
Sherry Johnston also said there has been no pressure put on her son to marry Bristol Palin, the pregnant daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.


"Absolutely not," Sherry Johnston told reporters outside the family's Wasilla home. Johnston said the two teens already had plans to marry before they knew she was pregnant.Sarah Palin announced Monday that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter was pregnant. The father was not identified beyond the first name of Levi.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

usma65 said:


> backpasture said:
> 
> 
> > 4) Quote: "If she can't get her own family in order she doesn't have any business running for Vice President".
> ...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Quote "
The pregnancy is relevant, like it or not, though. Palin and McCain are both on the record as being against sex ed, unless it is 'abstinence only' sex ed. But, if Palin can't get the 'abstinence only' message to work for her own daughter, why does she think it will work for everybody else? Bristol Palin is a highly ironic and symbolic example of another failed Republican policy. You can make that point, and still applaud her decision to 'do the right thing' once she became pregnant. "
Unquote

So since someone teaches their children to be abstanant and it doesn't work,,, they then should go to plan B and hand out rubbers to the children and teach them how to apply them using common garden vegatables

That would be similiar to teaching a child to abstain from drugs but since they fell subject to peer pressure and got all strung out,,, we should just hand out needles. And teach them the affects of different drugs ,,,that way they can choose what kind of high they want. We must imform them you know.

What would your solution be backpasture?

Pete


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

It makes no difference as I am throwing my vote away on a third party candidate anyway. It gives me less respect for a woman who will be too busy to give her 17 year old pregnant daughter (and grandchild) the support, attention, and love she will need during such a difficult time. I would have had much greater respect for her if she had stated she had too much on her plate to be VP when she found out this news.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

labdoc said:


> It makes no difference as I am throwing my vote away on a third party candidate anyway. It gives me less respect for a woman who will be too busy to give her 17 year old pregnant daughter (and grandchild) the support, attention, and love she will need during such a difficult time. I would have had much greater respect for her if she had stated she had too much on her plate to be VP when she found out this news.


So I assume you are voting third party because you feel the same about Obama and his two small children.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

labdoc said:


> It gives me less respect for a woman who will be too busy to give her 17 year old pregnant daughter (and grandchild) the support, attention, and love she will need during such a difficult time. I would have had much greater respect for her if she had stated she had too much on her plate to be VP when she found out this news.


Are you kidding? 

How many men have had pregnant wives, mistresses, or daughters while campaigning? It didn't stop them, why should it stop her when they have a full and supportive family. 

If I were Bristol I would feel such guilt if my mom backed out of the opportunity of a lifetime because of my pregnancy. This young lady has the support of her extended family, her fiance, and his family. Why should her mother be expected to pass on the opportunity of a lifetime? Can we say double standard!!??

If she is a good mother, that is her and her family's business.
If she is a bad mother, that is her and her family's business. 
*No one would be asking these questions of a male candidate if his daughter was pregnant.*


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

labdoc said:


> It makes no difference as I am throwing my vote away on a third party candidate anyway. It gives me less respect for a woman who will be too busy to give her 17 year old pregnant daughter (and grandchild) the support, attention, and love she will need during such a difficult time. I would have had much greater respect for her if she had stated she had too much on her plate to be VP when she found out this news.


The "First Dude" takes great care of those kids. They didn't move to Juneau when Sarah was elected Governor. He stayed with them in Wasilla.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

usma65 said:


> I stand corrected. His brother is Roy, not Raila. Raila Odingo is the cousin. What is your response to this...and the picture?
> 
> http://dontvoteobama.net/cousin odingo.htm


Again, NOT his cousin, just a nutjob that claims to be his cousin. He didn't come out with that claim until long after this picture was taken (odd he never brought it up the one time they actually met in person, huh?). And yes, Obama has met with several political leaders from several countries -- both people in power, and opposition leaders. Meeting with any of those people doesn't constitute an endorsement of their policies. (Incidently, that one meeting gives him more foreign policy experience than Palin.) For future reference, you might want to fact check other sources for some confirmation rather than rely entirely on sites like dontvoteforobama.com.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Pete said:


> So since someone teaches their children to be abstanant and it doesn't work,,, they then should go to plan B and hand out rubbers to the children and teach them how to apply them using common garden vegatables
> 
> That would be similiar to teaching a child to abstain from drugs but since they fell subject to peer pressure and got all strung out,,, we should just hand out needles. And teach them the affects of different drugs ,,,that way they can choose what kind of high they want. We must imform them you know.
> 
> ...


Well, if you teach them abstinence and it 'doesnt' work', as you say, then you are closing the barn door after the cows are out. 

My solution -- teach abstinence AND teach kids about contraception. My parents didn't do a particularly good job at sex ed. (Actually, they didn't do anything, other than tell me not to have sex.) Their approach to alcohol was a little more nuanced, and is the one that I will be taking with my kids when they get a couple years older. Basically, I was told that if I was caught drinking I was in trouble. BUT, if I did drink, and I was caught driving.... well I was going to REALLY be in trouble. Underage drinking might not be smart, but driving drunk is flat out stupid.

I think that kids should be taught in a similar way about sex. Abstinence is the best way to stay safe and not get pregnant, but if you ARE going to have sex (and let's face it, teenagers are walking hormone factories) then you better use some protection. You are kidding yourself it you think abstinence-only sex ed works for a majority of the kids out there. You can teach kids how to be safe without condoning their behavior if they give into their impulses.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

You can talk to your kids until you are blue in the face but when they are out of your reach you cannot control their behavior. All you can do is hope that their upbringing took root. Its too bad they don't make an implant or something you can give them when they reach puberty that will prevent pregnancy, and then give them the antidote when they reach adulthood.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I think if you teach kids how to have safe sex then in a kids mind ,,,it is condoned without consenquences.

I also believe the Dare program leads to way to much knowledge about drugs and can be enticing for some.

Thats what my kids told me anyway.

I think ones personality plays a big part in what kids do.

Hein site 20 20 I would lock the little buggers in the closet after school,,throw away the TV and video games and beat the hell out of them more often.:razz:

Pete


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Its too bad they don't make an implant or something you can give them when they reach puberty that will prevent pregnancy, and then give them the antidote when they reach adulthood.


They do make those. I wouldn't advocate giving you daughter a birth control implant, but it's not a bad idea to teach your kids about condoms (rather than rely on abstinence as the only way to reduce the number of unplanned teenage pregnancies).


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I have daughters, teaching them about condoms may not have had much impact with the male half of the equation. I would just sit here cleaning my .44Mag when ever they brought some young stud home with them. That and my rep as a hard nosed street cop worked like a charm


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I have daughters, teaching them about condoms may not have had much impact with the male half of the equation. I would just sit here cleaning my .44Mag when ever they brought some young stud home with them. That and my rep as a hard nosed street cop worked like a charm


The .44Mag is probably the most effective contraceptive device available. :-D


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Pregnancy is not the issue. Strong character and moral fiber are. Babies are never a mistake. They are a miracle and a blessing. Sarah Palin understands this. Condoms do not build character, only excuses and an ‘I can cheat and get by’ attitude that is in too much evidence today. Yes, teenagers are prone to make mistakes, but it is the sex, protected or otherwise that is the mistake, not the baby.

After a forest fire, there is a beautiful green explosion. The green is not the error, rather the match that carelessly started the unrestrained blaze. Condoms do not always work, abstinence is 100% effective. It always works. To teach otherwise is to say that D's are the mark we shoot for on our report cards. I'm afraid I'm not there. I don't always get the A, but I always strive for it.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

gsc said:


> Pregnancy is not the issue. Strong character and moral fiber are. Babies are never a mistake. They are a miracle and a blessing. Sarah Palin understands this. Condoms do not build character, only excuses and an ‘I can cheat and get by’ attitude that is in too much evidence today. Yes, teenagers are prone to make mistakes, but it is the sex, protected or otherwise that is the mistake, not the baby.
> 
> After a forest fire, there is a beautiful green explosion. The green is not the error, rather the match that carelessly started the unrestrained blaze. Condoms do not always work, abstinence is 100% effective. It always works. To teach otherwise is to say that D's are the mark we shoot for on our report cards. I'm afraid I'm not there. I don't always get the A, but I always strive for it.


bravo!!!!!!!!!

NCA


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

I do not blame the daughter, she only did what a normal teen would be doing if left alone a lot and not supervised by their parents who were to busy working or whatever parents do who do not supervise thier kids adaquetely. This happens all over the world, not just with the Palins. What I do criticise is the parents who one day brag to the nation about their lovely 5 kids and then the next day "out" the problems of thier teenage daughter to the whole world, in order to further their own career in politics. That was shameful. bud


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

akblackdawg said:


> I do not blame the daughter, she only did what a normal teen would be doing if left alone a lot and not supervised by their parents who were to busy working or whatever parents do who do not supervise thier kids adaquetely. This happens all over the world, not just with the Palins. * What I do criticise is the parents who one day brag to the nation about their lovely 5 kids and then the next day "out" the problems of thier teenage daughter to the whole world, in order to further their own career in politics. That was shameful.* bud


As so many have said, you should use terms like IMO or IMHO...who are you to say this was done "in order to further their own career" to suggest such a thing is dispicable, 

sour grapes, bud...THAT WAS SHAMEFUL

why could it have not been an example of, I am HONEST, I dont hide my dirty laundry, I WILL SHOW AMERICA that I TOO and my FAMILY TOO can make a MISTAKE, and WE can OWN UP TO OUR MISTAKE, unlike others that are not in the position we are in, where they can RUN AND HIDE out of the limelight.

I am sorry I do not share your feelings on this subject. I wish you the best with your mistakes.

NCA


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Just put yourself in Bristals place, how do you really think you would feel after a public "outing" like that when you were only 17. It is a private matter, it should have been kept pvt and have a ready quick answer when asked about it in a press conference. bud

ps, i went to phhs, small world.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

akblackdawg said:


> I do not blame the daughter, she only did what a normal teen would be doing if left alone a lot and not supervised by their parents who were to busy working or whatever parents do who do not supervise thier kids adaquetely.


Bud, I can't believe you are blaming the parents for her getting pregnant. My parents set a most upstanding example for me and had it not been for a boyfriend who wanted me to remain a "good girl", well I just don't know what all would have happened. I can't even begin to relay all the stuff my younger sisters did. And trust me, we were all highly supervised LOL. In fact, maybe oversupervised.



akblackdawg said:


> What I do criticise is the parents who one day brag to the nation about their lovely 5 kids and then the next day "out" the problems of thier teenage daughter to the whole world, in order to further their own career in politics. That was shameful.


Bud, she was showing...folks around Wasilla already knew. She told the story because folks were saying that Trig was Bristol's baby. She didn't "out" her daughter's preganancy...no pregnancies need to be outed, nature kinda does that for a woman.

The Palins are a normal family facing normal societal issues.


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

I think probably someone weighed in already on this particular issue. But I'll quote two things to illustrate a fundamental difference between the two:

Ahem:

"If my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her punished with a baby."

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.”

Can anyone identify the persons from which these quotes come from? I bet most people wouldn’t be able to tell… (sorry, sometimes the skill of sarcasm escapes me).

Just me 2 cents on this particular point... There are many others.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> Bud, I can't believe you are blaming the parents for her getting pregnant. My parents set a most upstanding example for me and had it not been for a boyfriend who wanted me to remain a "good girl", well I just don't know what all would have happened. I can't even begin to relay all the stuff my younger sisters did. And trust me, we were all highly supervised LOL. In fact, maybe oversupervised.



The parents are partially responsible for this. She is their child, and she is still a child (by legal definition). If she commited a crime, they would bear some of the responsibility, and they bear responsibility here. AND, again, Palin's view is that kids shouldn't even have access to INFORMATION about contraceptives. If that is they way she chose to raise her child, then she should bear some of the responsibility when that child becomes pregnant. 

Obviously Bristol's boyfriend didn't want her to remain a 'good girl', and they either didn't know about contraception, didn't know how to get it, or thought it was more morally wrong to use contraception than to have premaritial sex. (Don't try to argue that they used something and it failed -- condoms rarely fail.) Whichever reason, the parents bear some responsibility here. 

The parents also bear responsibility for dragging the girl into the national spotlight. She's the next Jamie Lynn Spears, and Palin should have known that there would be a media feeding frenzy about this. This thing is going to get really ugly, as the supermarket tabloids are already starting to jump all over it. Welcome to the era of the National Enquirer presidency. Take a look at US Weekly's latest issue:


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Legacy 6 said:


> I think probably someone weighed in already on this particular issue. But I'll quote two things to illustrate a fundamental difference between the two:
> 
> Ahem:
> 
> ...


The story on the partial quote you give was a little different:



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102653.php said:


> In response to a question about sex education and HIV/AIDS, Obama said he supports sex education that includes information about abstinence and contraception. Obama said he plans to teach his two daughters "first of all about values and morals." He added that if "they make a mistake" and have sex as teens, he does not want them "punished with a baby." Obama said that "it doesn't make sense to not give" teens information about pregnancy prevention and sexually transmitted infections.


What part of that statement troubles you? I hope each of us helps a our children learn that babies deserve to be a choice, not an accident.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Welcome to the era of the National Enquirer presidency. Take a look at US Weekly's latest issue:


 
You mean US Weekly who has MAXED out its donation money to the Obama campaign. Take a look at what they did for an Obama cover and it is easy to see the bias. Have they looked into any controversies in BHO's past?

You may choose to get your information from the pinhead tabloids but it seems some liberals where pretty upset with the tabloids during the Clinton years.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Right back atcha, backpasture.....;-)

http://www.usweekly.com/

One that dishes it out must learn to take it regards,

kg


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> The story on the partial quote you give was a little different:
> What part of that statement troubles you? I hope each of us helps a our children learn that babies deserve to be a choice, not an accident.


Jeff,

The part of the statement that bothers me is tht a man who potentially could be the POTUS can think that having a baby could be punishment. To me, that shows a total lack of respect for human life, especially the most vulnerable and dependant humans on earth.

Tom


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> You mean US Weekly who has MAXED out its donation money to the Obama campaign. Take a look at what they did for an Obama cover and it is easy to see the bias. Have they looked into any controversies in BHO's past?
> 
> You may choose to get your information from the pinhead tabloids but it seems some liberals where pretty upset with the tabloids during the Clinton years.


Ya. The tabloids. That's where I get my news.. 

The point is that every freaking tabloid in the country is going to be all over this from now until November (or until Palin steps down, which isn't out of the question at this point.) I think it's a load of crap that they put her on the cover, but she should have been aware that her daughter's pregnancy was fodder for those rags. If she didn't realisze that, she's either incredibly naive, or was blinded by her own ambition.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

K G said:


> Right back atcha, backpasture.....;-)
> 
> http://www.usweekly.com/
> 
> ...


That's great. The garbage on usweekly.com is of the same caliber as the garbage in the US Weekly tabloid.

I think you missed my point, which was the Palin should have foreseen that the scumbags at the various tabloids are going to be all over her daughter. And, it's only going to get uglier from here.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> The story on the partial quote you give was a little different:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102653.php*
> _In response to a question about sex education and HIV/AIDS, Obama said he supports sex education that includes information about abstinence and contraception. Obama said he plans to teach his two daughters "first of all about values and morals." He added that if *"they make a mistake"* and have sex as teens, he does not want them *"punished with a baby." *Obama said that "it doesn't make sense to not give" teens information about pregnancy prevention and sexually transmitted infections._
> ...


Jeff,
I agree but for me it's the words, wording, and the mind set. That having sex is a mistake; it's a choice and not using birth control is a choice. If they used birth control and became pregnant - mistake.
Having a child, bringing a life into this world is not a punishment. Raising a child, is not a punishment. There are options available after you have the baby. 
This is not a reflection on Obama because I believe the majority of people would agree with what he said and the way he worded his statement. It is a reflection of how little value society places on human life after conception, ie: mistake, punished.
Lyle


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

backpasture said:


> I think you missed my point, which was the Palin should have foreseen that the scumbags at the various tabloids are going to be all over her daughter. And, it's only going to get uglier from here.


I think you've missed the whole point. The tabloids would have found out that Palin's daughter was pregnant anyway. If Palin didn't disclose that, the tabloids would have had a field day with that one. They would have come with all the same trash either way, but they can't say that Palin was "trying to hide" her daughters pregnancy.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

YardleyLabs said:


> The story on the partial quote you give was a little different:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that statement troubles you? I hope each of us helps a our children learn that babies deserve to be a choice, not an accident.


 
The fact that they feel that PRO CHOICE only means the freedom to choose abortion. It seems to me that pretty much every woman in America has the choice and choosing to have a child rather than to abort it is still a choice that one makes, however, in this case people are knocking her for making a choice. 

And just for the record while I am a republican I do differ on this issue as well as stem cell research. My opinion on abortion is that I don’t really have one and that it is a personal issue for WOMEN and not for me to decide. Stem cell research is being complicated by the abortion issue, which has NOTHING to do with embryonic stem cells and the prevention/restrictions of such research is absolutely ridiculous (I do know just a bit more than most on this topic).


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Backpasture, you seem to be of the opinion you are the only one who saw this coming. Sarah and Todd and Bristol and Levi all knew what the possibilities were as did John McCain.

What we have is the liberal news media and politicians trying to make money from this girl's mistake. That is the lowest- profit from private family problems. It has nothing to do with disclosure of important information, only greed.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

gsc -they do have 24 hours of news programs to fill after all.....


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> gsc -they do have 24 hours of news programs to fill after all.....


I'm with you there, and it is money driven, not to inform, but to make money.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If the story were just being driven by the tabloids, it would not be such a big deal. The fact that the big time liberal media is printing all this garbage is disturbing to me. They didn't even mention the Edwards affair until the Enquirer did some serious journalistic investigation into the thing. If the media weas unbiased they would have been all over the Edwards story from the get go. Whats going on here is that the media by and large is liberal and wants the dims to win the White House. end of story.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

gsc said:


> Sarah and Todd and Bristol and Levi all knew what the possibilities were as did John McCain.


I don't think they did. And, if they did, they were dumb to think it wouldn't matter, or to think the tabloids would leave this alone. I agree with Bob that there has been a double standard with the way the Edwards scandal was handled, but... didn't McCain's team expect that to be the case? Obviously the McCain team didn't think this through.

The mainstream has enough stuff to occupy them with Palin -- the state trooper thing, Alaskan Independence Party thing, her stating a month ago that she doesn't know what the VP does, Palin's own hate-spewing preacher (ironic, huh?). They don't need this one. I suspect they will back away from it, since the tabloids are going to go wild with it.

How long before Palin's ex-brother in law sells his story to one of those rags?

This is going to go down as one of the biggest political blunders in history.

Paging Senator Eagleton....


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

It will only go down as a blunder if McCain Palin does not win the election. Personally I think it was a very smart choice. Senator McCain needs the backing of the conservative base of the GOP and conservative leaning independents to win. This pick may well give him the votes from those two groups he needs, and pull some Hillary supporters away from the dems. So far the only candidate of the 4 who hasn't had some kind of skeleton pop out of his closet is Joe Biden. I hope somewhere someone is digging thru his past for the truth about him. I doubt the liberal media will do so though, despite how hard they are looking for negative info about gov palin.


----------



## i_willie12 (Apr 11, 2008)

backpasture said:


> The mainstream has enough stuff to occupy them with Palin -- the state trooper thing, Alaskan Independence Party thing, her stating a month ago that she doesn't know what the VP does, Palin's own hate-spewing preacher (ironic, huh?). They don't need this one. I suspect they will back away from it, since the tabloids are going to go wild with it.
> 
> How long before Palin's ex-brother in law sells his story to one of those rags?
> 
> ...



Yet McCain, knowing all of this, Still picked her as his VP I really dont understand that. He had to know that it was an uphill battle before hand and now is going to be an act of god to win.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

backpasture said:


> That's great. The garbage on usweekly.com is of the same caliber as the garbage in the US Weekly tabloid.
> 
> I think you missed my point, which was the Palin should have foreseen that the scumbags at the various tabloids are going to be all over her daughter. And, it's only going to get uglier from here.


No....your point is _quite_ apparent. You're going to find fault with the Republican nominee for VPOTUS no matter where you have to look to find support for your argument, even if you have to convolute it.

You don't think she KNEW the crap she was going to be up against if she chose to accept the nomination? From what I understand the questionnaire she filled out and the grilling she took from a McCain lawyer doing the vetting was enough to have made the Nuremberg trials look like a Boy Scout meeting. I love how all the liberal media outlets and self-important political pundits think that some of these piddling and cause-serving "revelations" are going to force TRUE change supporters to waver in their confidence in the McCain-Palin ticket.

Look....if you want Obama to be our President, vote for him....please. Just remember that you did when the current Congress with the LOWEST APPROVAL RATING EVER sides up with the man with the least executive experience EVER. The only people that will be _happier_ with his election besides the liberal left will be Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

kg


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Senator Joe Lieberman, not exactly a firebrand conservative said last that Obama's eloquence is no substitute for a record. THAT sound bite hit the nail on the head.

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_lieberman


----------



## greyghost (Jun 11, 2004)

Many good people have given much, some their lives, for the good of some that may not appreciate their sacrifice, but they gave. Freedom is not understood by all, never will be. Some will lose their way. Some will say things that are untrue to gain selfish means. Some will stand tall and do right, serve. 


You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride,
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side,
You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Dylan


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

YardleyLabs said:


> The story on the partial quote you give was a little different:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that statement troubles you? I hope each of us helps a our children learn that babies deserve to be a choice, not an accident.


I think you're getting something mixed up here... The two quotes were used to show a comparison/difference in the mentality of the two candidates.

I'm not really Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. I think some kinds of abortion are an abomination. I also think there are times when it MIGHT be appropriate. I'm a Conservative, but that doesn't mean I see everything in shades of red.

I think a child is NOT a punishment. That a child won't RUIN your life. And though because it happens often, that doesn't mean it's okay either. We do need to educate, but like most things, we shouldn't rely on the education to be done in schools.

The BEST education I ever got wasn't in a classroom. And it wasn't from someone who stood on the pillar of perfection... but from one who'd made mistakes before.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> The story on the partial quote you give was a little different:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that statement troubles you? I hope each of us helps a our children learn that babies deserve to be a choice, not an accident.


I Don't normally weigh in on political threads but here are MY thoughts.....

Firstly, babies are NEVER mistakes. They could arrive with better TIMING but they are NEVER mistakes. You are NEVER PUNISHED by getting pregnant. 

Secondly, the American public has been looking a long time for a candidate that is one of US...not the privileded, the elite elbow rubbing group in Washington that no longer resemble the common American. But a REAL AMerican.

Sarah Palin is that REAL American. 

1) She's a working mother. How many women in society today have to manage a job, home and kids with or without a partner???? 

2) How many women with disabled children struggle with decisions about their health and future? I can tell you PERSONALLY, when I was pregnant and they did the protein test to see if the baby I was carrying was mentally disabled, its incredibly scary. I have NO IDEA what I would have done if they had suspected something would be wrong with the baby. That is a very very scary thing to be faced with.

3)How many FAMILIES deal with children that do things they know they shouldn't do? ESPECIALLY when dealing with teenagers? PUH>>>>>LEEEEZE......EVERY family with teenagers has to deal with either premaritial sex, stealing, lying or some other "thing" that you raised your children not to do. How many of us as teenagers or young adults KNEW everything and just knew that our parents were put on this earth to make our lives boring and to ruin our fun. As far as if her daughter used contraceptives or not, well people that KNOW better often "forget" or "elect" not to use it once or twice (the old, I can't get pregnant now because....... or the "As long as I don't ejaculate inside you can't get pregnant" line). I guarantee that Bristol (whether her mom likes it or not) knows PLENTY about sex and birth control. 

Personally, I think this will blow over. AND I think in the long run, it will HELP them. People can relate to her as she is a REAL person with REAL family problems just like the rest of us.

WRL


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

K G said:


> From what I understand the questionnaire she filled out and the grilling she took from a McCain lawyer doing the vetting was enough to have made the Nuremberg trials look like a Boy Scout meeting.


Really? Where did you hear that? They didn't even conduct that 'grilling' of an interview with her until the day before they offered her the job. 

I have no doubt this has and will continue to energize the base, but at the same time it is driving the undecideds to Obama. McCain screwed the pooch on this one.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> The mainstream has enough stuff to occupy them with Palin -- the state trooper thing, Alaskan Independence Party thing, her stating a month ago that she doesn't know what the VP does, Palin's own hate-spewing preacher (ironic, huh?).


I've got an idea. How about you just give us the website where you get your talking points so we can go there and read what you're gonna say and you don't have to type so much. Win..win for sure.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

backpasture said:


> I have no doubt this has and will continue to energize the base, but at the same time it is driving the undecideds to Obama. McCain screwed the pooch on this one.


Can you honestly say that you even KNOW any "undecideds?" Taken any credible polls lately? Where did YOU get this "information?"

You keep thinking what you need to think. The fear you feel that BHO is gonna get handed his butt in this election becomes more palpable with each post you put up.

kg


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

backpasture said:


> I have no doubt this has and will continue to energize the base, but at the same time it is driving the undecideds to Obama. McCain screwed the pooch on this one.


Really? Where did you hear that? Maybe from the HUGE jumps in the polls for BHO?

I made my decision a while ago on not voting for BHO, but the choice on bringing Palin in solidified my decision.

BP, what do you think BHO and the dems will do with Gun Rights based on the speeches and positions of SCOTUS on the 2nd Amendment? You're not a single issue voter, but isn't gun owner's rights and hunter's rights important enough to you that you'd want to vote for someone who supports the Individual Rights of gun owners??


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Really? Where did you hear that? They didn't even conduct that 'grilling' of an interview with her until the day before they offered her the job.


So you were there? Look, you have no clue how much was done toward checking her background. I'm sure you also have no idea of Bidens, Cheneys, Gores, Bush's, etc background checks either. Good talking point though.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

K G said:


> Can you honestly say that you even KNOW any "undecideds?" Taken any credible polls lately? Where did YOU get this "information?"
> 
> You keep thinking what you need to think. The fear you feel that BHO is gonna get handed his butt in this election becomes more palpable with each post you put up.


Most of the polls have been showing Obama's lead opening since McCain made his pick (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc). We will see what happens next week after the repub convention 'bounce'. Personally, I think a better indicator than the polls is the oddsmakers. Vegas and the electronic markets have the smart money on Obama. 

Your last line gave me a good chuckle.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Obama doesn't want his children to be "punished by having to have a baby".
Instead he would rather his children have the abortion or kill the baby. What have his children learned by this decision? Certainly not how to be a responsible person, but to pick and chose what you want to be responsibly for.

Babies have rights also if not why did congress enact the "kill a expecting mother and you have committed two homicides law".Plenty of Dem's voted for this law. (sounds very hypocritical to me) 

The term mother's right to chose shouldn't even be an issue, but more importantly how about the baby's right to life. How about the standing up for someone that can't stand up for themselves. We do it for the mental impaired for the handicapped but not for a baby!

If asked and if they could respond I'm quite sure the baby would have a different opinion on what should be done. I'm sure they would be very content being surrounded with love and affection from either a single mom or two loving parents.

Abortion or baby killing is just an excuse for getting rid of a problem that some think exists from a mistake that they have made. What ever happened to being responsible for your actions? Why is it that some think that having a baby is a consequence for a mistake that has been made? I thought that having children was a celebration of life. 

I bet that there are a lot of us out in Internet land and the world over that if we asked our parents we would find out that most of us are mistakes. Not planned, but just happened. Back seat of the 57' Chevy, at the drive-in on Fri nite type of happenings. That's all this issue is about. Not at the right time! Is this a reason to kill a baby?

This will interfere with my career! This will interrupt my lifestyle! Oh my God, your still in High School! If we are talking about eliminating mistakes many of you are advocating that you should be eliminated from existence. If that's OK with you than I guess abortion or killing is the answer to the elimination of this question. Who wants to step up to the plate and go first? 

Medical problems of the mother are of great concern. I think that if given the choice the mother would say the baby is most important.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Most of the polls have been showing Obama's lead opening since McCain made his pick (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc). We will see what happens next week after the repub convention 'bounce'. Personally, I think a better indicator than the polls is the oddsmakers. Vegas and the electronic markets have the smart money on Obama.
> 
> Your last line gave me a good chuckle.


We'll see how smart that money is on November 5.

I notice you took no exception to my statement about the only people who will be happier than the liberal left if Obama wins.........perhaps you'll be able to take some of those 'Vegas winnings and build an underground bunker with them.

Good chuckle _indeed_ regards,

kg


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

BP
Why do you spend time on these threads? You don’t like anything republican and nothing they do or can do would ever change you mind. Do you think your rhetoric will sway anyone here? Wouldn’t your time be better spent listening to air America or stalking Keith Obermen?


----------



## Hoppy (Oct 23, 2003)

Heyas!

I normally don't post to these kinds of threads. Do like reading them occasionally.

But -- reading this one I thought I would just chime in for a second to say this:

I *was* one of those 'undecided' voters. I honestly didn't have a CLUE how I was going to vote prior to McCain making his VP choice.

Understand - I am a 'need to know who I am voting for' kind of voter. I don't cast my vote lightly - and I don't bank on any information coming from the media. I research - I read - I dig -- I want to know who I am really voting for. Who they are - and who they 'have been'. How they've voted and if their actions back up what they say. 

I can tell you that I haven't been contacted by any of the polling companies - so they can't be counting me in as one of those 'undecided' --- so I have to question their accuracies if they say that the 'undecideds' are moving toward Obama. Because I am NOT.

Sarah Palin cinched it for me. She is what I have felt we needed in the white house for a long time. Someone who's a little more 'real American' than most politicians. I agree with her values. I like the fact that she's called a spade a spade when it came down to it - REGARDLESS of whether they were democrat OR republican. I could go on and on -- but I won't. 

Bottom line is - until McCain made his choice and I took the time to start digging up who she is, what she believes in etc --- I didn't know where my vote was going to go. Palin changed that for me. I'm sure I'm not the only person like this, either. 

As for her daughter being pregnant? Well, I have a VERY close friend who is a PHENOMENAL mother -- and she ended up in the same position with her daughter. Folks, it happens. The bigger issue is how it is handled (IMO). I don't blame the mother - God knows my parents raised me right and I still had my moments (please don't ask Vicky about these! haha) -- and I would HATE to think that my parents would have been blamed for my stupidity as a teen!

If I were in Palin's shoes -- it wouldn't have deterred me from moving forward. If it were my kid - the media wouldn't 'destroy' them by any means. Heck, what doesn't kill ya only makes ya stronger is how I raise my kids to look at things --- so who cares that the media is going at it? Every kid who's parent is in the spotlight lives their lives in a fishbowl. Look at Chelsea Clinton, the Bush twins, etc. I know more about them then I care to --- but they're doing just FINE -- media attention and all!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Personally, I think a better indicator than the polls is the oddsmakers. Vegas and the electronic markets have the smart money on Obama.


Yup!

The same ones that said last Thursday that McCain's VP Pick was Romney at 70-30.

The next day McCain announced Palin.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Q: How could the McCain campaign have kept the Palin pregnancy out of the press?

A: Leak it that John Edwards was the father.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> Q: How could the McCain campaign have kept the Palin pregnancy out of the press?
> 
> A: Leak it that John Edwards was the father.


That is the best yet....too bad it is more than half true


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> BP
> Why do you spend time on these threads?


Maybe because its fun to tap on the glass and give the chain a yank. Otherwise these threads would just be a backslapping Kool-Aid Party. Boring.

JD


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

JDogger said:


> Maybe because its fun to tap on the glass and give the chain a yank. Otherwise these threads would just be a backslapping Kool-Aid Party. Boring.
> 
> JD


HAHAhhahHAHAHAHahhahHAHAHAhahaaaaa

A kindred spirit-

Yanked a chain or 2 myownself regards

Bubba


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

JDogger said:


> Maybe because its fun to tap on the glass and give the chain a yank. Otherwise these threads would just be a backslapping Kool-Aid Party. Boring.
> 
> JD


 You are right, but he/she needs to at least bring a valid point or three.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> BP
> Why do you spend time on these threads? You don’t like anything republican and nothing they do or can do would ever change you mind. Do you think your rhetoric will sway anyone here? Wouldn’t your time be better spent listening to air America or stalking Keith Obermen?


Pot meet kettle. Switch out "republican", "air america" and "Keith Olberman" with democrat, EIB and El Rushbo and you are describing 95% of the posters.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

JDogger said:


> Maybe because its fun to tap on the glass and give the chain a yank. Otherwise these threads would just be a backslapping Kool-Aid Party. Boring.
> 
> JD



Thats the kind of elitism that I am hoping for right up to Nov 5th


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

Page said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> How many men have had pregnant wives, mistresses, or daughters while campaigning? It didn't stop them, why should it stop her when they have a full and supportive family.
> 
> ...


No I'm not kidding. THE opportunity of a lifetime is being able to raise children to be upstanding, moral, productive adults not something as trivial as VP. This girl made a mistake and needs her mother to help her through a difficult time not jetting off to Washington. My wife likes to listen occasionally to Dr. Laura's talk show. I hate the way she degrades her callers but the one point she makes that lingers in my mind is a statement that says you are given children for 18+/- years. Your life now revolves around them not yourself. When they are gone from home, THEN you can concentrate on your big plans in life. Often these are not mutually exclusive, but in this case I wonder if they are. Dad taking care of the kids can't sympathize with the morning sickness, the feelings of guilt, the pain of delivery, etc. like this girl's mother can. 

To answer Achiro's post, I am not voting for Obama because he has no real experience, wishes to take away my gun rights, endorses abortion, and is the most liberal candidate in my memory. That is enough reason for me and millions of others.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

"If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal 
wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of 
destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I 
see that as a cheap trade." -- Leftist Blogger, _Daily Kos_

For more examples -- CLICK.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

So if I get this right a woman should stay home with the kids while us men folk go to work and run the country ?? Is that what the dems are using as a reason for her not to run ? Thats not going to sit well with the women folk I know. Please will you run some ads during prime time with that message.......Pleeeeease.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I guess Mark Twain would have voted for the dims. Wasn't it he who said' The best way to keep a woman is barefoot and pregnant in front of a stove"?


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Raising a family does not mean you can't run the country, state, company, school...

It just raises the level of difficulty and the final score when you nail it.

Here's to Sarah sticking the dismount!


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

labdoc said:


> No I'm not kidding. THE opportunity of a lifetime is being able to raise children to be upstanding, moral, productive adults not something as trivial as VP. This girl made a mistake and needs her mother to help her through a difficult time not jetting off to Washington. My wife likes to listen occasionally to Dr. Laura's talk show. I hate the way she degrades her callers but the one point she makes that lingers in my mind is a statement that says you are given children for 18+/- years. Your life now revolves around them not yourself. When they are gone from home, THEN you can concentrate on your big plans in life. Often these are not mutually exclusive, but in this case I wonder if they are. Dad taking care of the kids can't sympathize with the morning sickness, the feelings of guilt, the pain of delivery, etc. like this girl's mother can.


I can't even respond to this. 

So for a woman, the opportunity of a lifetime is to raise great kids over being the VP even if her husband is there to raise them?? Is she supposed to be barefoot the whole time too??

What about the male candidates?? Why isn't the opportunity of Barack's lifetime staying home with his kids and making sure they grow into wonderful young women?

Double standard!


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

gsc said:


> Here's to Sarah sticking the dismount!


Here Here!! I can't wait to hear her speech tonight. I have a feeling it will be great!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Hoppy said:


> Sarah Palin cinched it for me. !


yeah, me too...

Ron Paul for President....


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> BP
> Why do you spend time on these threads? You don’t like anything republican and nothing they do or can do would ever change you mind. Do you think your rhetoric will sway anyone here? Wouldn’t your time be better spent listening to air America or stalking Keith Obermen?


Why do _you_ post to them? Because you like preaching to the choir and hearing the rousing 'amens' that follow? 

Believe it or not, not everyone gravitates to the news sources, discussion groups, etc that just reinforce their own beliefs.

This is not a Republican website, and not everyone agrees with the right wing Political GDG that gets posted. I don't start political threads, but I won't hesitate to respond to them.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I was just wondering.

Can anyone out here explain why terminating 32 cells is murdern or uncaring? 
And on the opposite end of the spectrum,,,,can someone explain why it is not?
Thanks 
Pete


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Pete said:


> Can anyone out here explain why terminating 32 cells is murdern[sic] or uncaring?


"Thirty-two cells?" Is that your name for the human embryo? A life form with its own unique set of chromosomes, half from Mom's egg and half from Dad's sperm, yet completely unlike any other?

If you want to start a debate on abortion, don't threadjack this one.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

labdoc said:


> No I'm not kidding. THE opportunity of a lifetime is being able to raise children to be upstanding, moral, productive adults not something as trivial as VP. This girl made a mistake and needs her mother to help her through a difficult time not jetting off to Washington. My wife likes to listen occasionally to Dr. Laura's talk show. I hate the way she degrades her callers but the one point she makes that lingers in my mind is a statement that says you are given children for 18+/- years. Your life now revolves around them not yourself. When they are gone from home, THEN you can concentrate on your big plans in life. Often these are not mutually exclusive, but in this case I wonder if they are. Dad taking care of the kids can't sympathize with the morning sickness, the feelings of guilt, the pain of delivery, etc. like this girl's mother can.
> 
> To answer Achiro's post, I am not voting for Obama because he has no real experience, wishes to take away my gun rights, endorses abortion, and is the most liberal candidate in my memory. That is enough reason for me and millions of others.


WOW! 

I could not disagree more. 

Firstly, Dr Laura spouts garbage most of the time. Listen to her for entertainment value all you want but a bunch of her advice is garbage. Since when does "caring" for a child stop at 18 years old?

I believe "somewhere" it states the best thing a father can do for his children is love his wife.

If a person cannot love themselves and "do" for themselves, how are they truly capable of fully loving someone else? Maybe the "best" example that the Gov can do for her daughter is to let her know 1) the world does NOT revolve around her 2) when life gives you lemons you make lemonade 3) having your "lifeplan" disrupted is not the end of the world and you must go on.

Why can't Dad be there for his daughter? Are you saying that a woman that adopted a child can't be a "real mother" because she has not had the experience of childbirth or morning sickness? I think you have really opened a can that you might want to RUN and put the lid back on.

WRL


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pregnancy is not the end of the world. 











/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Hey, between Dr. Laura, US Weekly, and the liberal blogs, we've got all the news, counsel, and advice we could ever need..............

kg


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

WRL said:


> WOW!
> 
> I could not disagree more.
> 
> ...



What about the "I have 2 daddy's" thing ? Which is it folks, you have to decide which way you want it. The lids off !!


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

backpasture said:


> Why do _you_ post to them? Because you like preaching to the choir and hearing the rousing 'amens' that follow?
> 
> Believe it or not, not everyone gravitates to the news sources, discussion groups, etc that just reinforce their own beliefs.
> 
> This is not a Republican website, and not everyone agrees with the right wing Political GDG that gets posted. I don't start political threads, but I won't hesitate to respond to them.


BP, if you (and others) were not posting expressing your views, this thread would have died out at 15 or 20. Most is good conversation. Politics and Religion do not have standard answers out of a book we all agree on. It is discussion/debate that makes this country great and is moving it forward. There is room in this country for Democrats, Rebulicans, Greens, Indepentants, Libetarians, etc, etc. Welcome to the party.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Pete said:


> I was just wondering.
> 
> Can anyone out here explain why terminating 32 cells is murdern or uncaring?
> And on the opposite end of the spectrum,,,,can someone explain why it is not?
> ...


Pete
Just so you know an embryo is 32 cells at about 65-74 hours post fertilization. By day 5 they are so compacted that you could not count the number in most cases. For the most part people do not even have an idea they are pregnant at that stage. This is not the point where abortions take place (32 cells) and when they do generally take place the embryo has developed to much more than a cell mass.
Trust me I know.

My thoughts on the matter are above and I am not a huge pro life guy, but that is not to say that I support all abortion either, but please get your facts straight if you are going to make an argument

FWIW- I agree with you about embryos at that cell stage and one part of my job involves disposing of some embryos that are at this stage and on up to blastocyst which are highly compacted cell masses about 5 days old. These are so small they are not visible without a microscope and you could not distinguish the individual cells from any other type of cells at this point. I suppose that makes me a murder in some folks eyes, but they are a mass of cells at this point and nothing more


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

How bout this......


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> What about the "I have 2 daddy's" thing ? Which is it folks, you have to decide which way you want it. The lids off !!



Not sure what you mean?

WRL


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

WRL said:


> Not sure what you mean?


Lee,

You know, Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve.

Tom


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Rep Barney Frank is now piling on the Palin story. Considering the glass house he lives in he shouldn't be chucking rocks.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/r...rank:_Sarah_Palin_s_family_life_is_fair_game/


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

twall said:


> Lee,
> 
> You know, Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve.
> 
> Tom


I got that part but how does that tie into my post that he quoted?

WRL


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

WRL said:


> I got that part but how does that tie into my post that he quoted?
> 
> WRL


Lee,

Reread the posts, I'm guessing Steve was adding the 2 daddys to your comments. But, I'll let him speak for himself.

Tom


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Kevin
I thought this was the perfect place to hear peoples veiw points on why they think its OK or not OK to abort.
Because basically everyone has been talking around it.

So if someone is going to claim this or that ,,,then They can certain give their explaination as to why they have come up with their reasoning for what they believe. After all why should I believe someone just because they believe something. 
I'm on the fence 

Convince me.



BBG
NO I did have my facts straight

It was a term which was intended to be interchangable for 2 sets of chromosomes which meet in the dark all the way up to about 9 months in the womb.

Pete


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *JDogger*  
_Maybe because its fun to tap on the glass and give the chain a yank. Otherwise these threads would just be a backslapping Kool-Aid Party. Boring.

JD_






Steve Amrein said:


> Thats the kind of elitism that I am hoping for right up to Nov 5th


Keep hoping. If all goes as you desire, I am sure you will don the mantle of elitism with ease.

JD


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Pete said:


> Kevin
> I thought this was the perfect place to hear peoples veiw points on why they think its OK or not OK to abort.
> Because basically everyone has been talking around it.
> 
> ...


Then no your facts were not straight because there is a huge difference between an embryo that is three weeks old and one that is "32" cells. "32 cells" is not interchangable for "2 sets of chromosomes which meet in the dark". 
Sorry but 32 cells and a fetus with a heart beat and other developed human features is a totally different thing. If you ever make it down this way I can show you the difference;-)


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

twall said:


> Lee,
> 
> Reread the posts, I'm guessing Steve was adding the 2 daddys to your comments. But, I'll let him speak for himself.
> 
> Tom



Yes just adding to your point


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

JDogger said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDogger*
> _Maybe because its fun to tap on the glass and give the chain a yank. Otherwise these threads would just be a backslapping Kool-Aid Party. Boring.
> 
> ...


Gee thanks for the thoughts but I am just a working guy in fly over country sitting behind the glass drinking Kool-aid. Getting ready to sign more checks for the gooberment hopin the taxes dont get so high as it wont be able to keep all my guys workin. Not one of those college graduates but I can balance a check book.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

BBG
No 
You just didn't understand what I was getting at.
You pick the number of cells.
Any where from moms 23 and dads 23 shaking hands and getting aquanted and all the way up just prior to first breath.

But no one has taken a stab as to a logical or inner core beleief system as to why. so it is possable to interpret that as ,,,,no one knows why they believe the way they believe,,

Or is it a stupid question for me to ask how people have come to their conclusion of such an important matter.

Sitting on the tailgate waiting reguards

Pete


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

As of about 15 minutes ago, Bristol Palin's pregnancy became a non-issue (if it ever was in the first place....)............

McCain-Palin '08 regards,

kg


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Pete said:


> BBG
> No
> You just didn't understand what I was getting at.
> You pick the number of cells.
> ...


Pete 
I guess I just don’t know wtf you are talking about, and form this rambling response and the lack of anyone else responding I don’t think I am alone. Moms 23 and dads 23 I am guessing you are talking about chromosomes rather than cells. The way you worded the question was why is killing 32 cells wrong. That is just a very poor statement because NOBODY HAS ABORTIONS WHEN AN EMBROY IS AT THIS STAGE. People do not even know they are pregnant at this early of embryonic development. If you want to debate abortion then come prepared and have your information correct. All abortions occurring at 32 cells are naturally occurring, unless you want to include the morning after pill and that would be at a 2PN stage, being one cell with two pro nuclei, and not generally considered abortion per say because when it is taken it is not know if conception occurred or not.
You can continue to say I am wrong, but I assure you I know the subject of embryonic development FAR better than you. 
Maybe you might want to rethink your wording and start your own thread rather that hijack this thread which is not about the topic you wish to debate


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

WRL said:


> WOW!
> 
> I could not disagree more.
> 
> ...


So just to "tap on the glass and yank the chain" as JDogger puts it, let me get this straight. You are saying selfish behavior (doing for oneself) teaches a child that the world does not revolve around them??? It's the old do as I say not as I do statement. I get it now.....

As I see it, Dad may be there for his daughter (how often I have no idea) but could use some help from Mom. 

And by the way, I never made any statement of inferiority of adopted parents. I also know men in general are pretty insensitive creatures. Can Dad really relate well to the needs of his pregnant teenager? Doubtful.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

NO,NO.NO. BBG

Go back and read what I originally stated and this time if you respond you can leave out the WTF acronym,, I asked for a reason for or against.

You have no idea weather I am for it or against it or somewhere in between.

If someone wants to talk about why they think something is wrong or right then I certainly can ask how they came to that conclusion without people getting possessed with a defensive response,,,
Don't you think.

If this is to difficult for you to adress then leave it alone,,,, I have come to the conclusion that this is a topic of no,no's for people which is fine by me.
I was just sitting on the tail gate and thought we could have a well thought out discussion about one of the biggest social agenda's that seperate the red from the blue.
Maby this is why the red hates the blue and vise versa,,,they don't communicate,,,everybody talks but they don't listen

With all the argueing you,ve done you have not answered my original question.
I need to move on to something more stimulating.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

BBG: NOBODY HAS ABORTIONS WHEN AN EMBROY IS AT THIS STAGE

Morning after pill. 

You're right it isn't 23 and 23 cells it is one and one. But at what point do draw the line and why?

This is a hugely personal issue and I think this could be an interesting discussion.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

labdoc said:


> Can Dad really relate well to the needs of his pregnant teenager? Doubtful.


Oh wow!! He can relate to his pregnant wife really well, but not to his pregnant daughter??? How is this possible?


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

i_willie12 said:


> Will Palins daughter's pregnancy affect the voting for their ticket??? I feel that it will, that alot of people will not be able to get past the thought of the VP or President having a daughter that is with child.
> 
> NOTHING ATTACKING just wanta see how people feel.


 I could care less. What's that got to do with how she will help run the country?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Having a couple of little ones never seemed to have a negative effect on JFK during his short term as POTUS. It did make for some great pictures and memories though.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> As so many have said, you should use terms like IMO or IMHO...who are you to say this was done "in order to further their own career" to suggest such a thing is dispicable,
> 
> sour grapes, bud...THAT WAS SHAMEFUL
> 
> ...


I agree with you...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Pete said:


> I was just wondering.
> 
> *Can anyone out here explain why terminating 32 cells is murdern or uncaring?*
> And on the opposite end of the spectrum,,,,can someone explain why it is not?
> ...


 
Pete
This is your original question. What you seem to be missing is that at the 32 cell stage abortions are not done. Even the morning after pill is not aborting a 32 cell embryo. Since it is not done in the first place there is no answer to your question as stated. If you want to ask if destroying a three + week old fetus is murder or not, that is a legitimate question because that is more of the time frame in which elective abortions take place. My argument with you is your use of the term 32 cells, because it does not happen.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

brian breuer said:


> BBG: NOBODY HAS ABORTIONS WHEN AN EMBROY IS AT THIS STAGE
> 
> Morning after pill.
> 
> ...


 
Brian
I guess this comes down to when YOU believe life begins. Many people believe it is at the point of conception, while others believe it is at various stages of development. How you believe is a personal choice. My personal belief is that it does not begin until the embryo has developed to such a point that it has basic human functions rather than just cellular functions that are basically no different than any other mammalian cell or mass of cells. Up until about 22 days of development there are no truly formed organs, nor heartbeat and for the most part the mass of cells is indistinguishable from any other mass of cells. Prior to this time naturally occurring abortions routinely take place without the mother even knowing she had ever conceived. For me personally, after years of working with embryos on a daily basis, I believe life to begin probably around 22 days. Before that you’re a mass of cells. 
If I get the time I will post some photos of some of our embryos up to about day 5 and you can decide how much human life you see.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

labdoc said:


> So just to "tap on the glass and yank the chain" as JDogger puts it, let me get this straight. You are saying selfish behavior (doing for oneself) teaches a child that the world does not revolve around them??? It's the old do as I say not as I do statement. I get it now.....


How judgemental can you be??? You don't know this woman, her family, or their REAL circumstances. Calling Sarah Palin selfish for serving her community, her state, and now her country (hopefully) is ridiculous. 



labdoc said:


> As I see it, Dad may be there for his daughter (how often I have no idea) but could use some help from Mom.


...and I'm sure he'll get it. 



labdoc said:


> I also know men in general are pretty insensitive creatures. Can Dad really relate well to the needs of his pregnant teenager? Doubtful.


You may be generally insensitive but don't paint all men with the same brush. My father had to deal with this EXACT situation 11 years ago when my sister announced to our family that she was preganant. She was the exact age of Bristol. My father supported her, guided her, and generally helped her so much during that time. For the millions of daughters and fathers out there who have gone through this EXACT situation I have to call your comments total BS. 

-My sister wanted to marry her boyfriend...mom and dad actually tried to talk her out of it. 

-My sister wanted to keep the baby regardless of our parents' stance on abortion. 

-Even when the doctors told her something may be wrong with the baby...they mentioned Downs specifically, Ashley believed that her child deserved to be born. 

This is why it makes me angry to hear the media insinuate that there is a shot-gun wedding and that her mother is punishing her by forcing her to have this baby. How can anyone make those statements without knowing this family? All indications I have seen and heard are that Bristol and Levi are handling all of this much better than half of the country.

Despite all of the media attention she has been receiving, Bristol handled herself very well at the convention and I think it is a testament to how her parents have raised her and the support and love she knows she has.

Believe me...this girl will succeed in life. Her mother has already stated that she is going to have to grow up earlier than they would have liked, but that was Bristol's decision, just like it is her decision to have the child and marry her bf. Unfortunately, in this day and age I don't think the backlash would be so bad against the family if Bristol wasn't planning to marry her boyfriend. 

From someone who has seen a very similar situation up close with my sister and my parents I respect the weight of the issue but wish people would get over it. Their family is a normal family. Why attack them for it? 

The comment was made that Sarah Palin was being selfish and needed to consider her kids. In my opinion she is considering her children. They will have every opportunity because their mother has worked hard and done well. Bravo Sarah!! 

I support and respect her more and more with every stupid attack that gets thrown at her. I heard a liberal commentator this morning say that the left has overplayed their hand on this issue and that if they keep it up the backlash will be incredible. I believe it. Never in my life have I considered myself a feminist because I have always wanted to stay at home and raise kids and puppies. I always pictured my husband working outside of the home and me working inside it. Cooking, cleaning, taking care of dogs and kids. Driving them to soccer and church and taking care of them the best I can, but I was born in America in the late 70s and I have been told all my life that I can do whatever I have the brains and drive to accomplish. To see this smart, driven woman being told by so many people that she can't achieve all she wants because she has a baby, or a daughter that is pregnant makes me want to riot!

If they weren't so expensive I'd be burning my bras this weekend!! :-x


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

labdoc said:


> So just to "tap on the glass and yank the chain" as JDogger puts it, let me get this straight. You are saying selfish behavior (doing for oneself) teaches a child that the world does not revolve around them??? It's the old do as I say not as I do statement. I get it now.....
> 
> As I see it, Dad may be there for his daughter (how often I have no idea) but could use some help from Mom.
> 
> And by the way, I never made any statement of inferiority of adopted parents. I also know men in general are pretty insensitive creatures. Can Dad really relate well to the needs of his pregnant teenager? Doubtful.


It is selfish behavior or empowering behavior? Is it TELLING somehow how to behavior or SHOWING someone how to behave? Life is full of unexpected events. 

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, show him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

I talk the talk AND walk the walk........

WRL


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

Page said:


> I support and respect her more and more with every stupid attack that gets thrown at her. I heard a liberal commentator this morning say that the left has overplayed their hand on this issue and that if they keep it up the backlash will be incredible. I believe it. Never in my life have I considered myself a feminist because I have always wanted to stay at home and raise kids and puppies. I always pictured my husband working outside of the home and me working inside it. Cooking, cleaning, taking care of dogs and kids. Driving them to soccer and church and taking care of them the best I can, but I was born in America in the late 70s and I have been told all my life that I can do whatever I have the brains and drive to accomplish. To see this smart, driven woman being told by so many people that she can't achieve all she wants because she has a baby, or a daughter that is pregnant makes me want to riot!
> 
> If they weren't so expensive I'd be burning my bras this weekend!! :-x


You sound like a great young gal who really has her head on straight.

....Don


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Ok Pete and anyone else interested

this is a 64 hour old embryo. 8-10 cells, hard to tell if it is 8 or 10 because this is only one plane, good quality










This is the same embryo being biopsied. I have run the needle through the zona and basically make a rent in the outer shell











Here I am using the pipette to squeeze out a single cell to be used for genetic analysis and determination of the sex of the embryo. This is called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. It allows us to determine which embryos are genetically healthy before transferring them back into the mother on day 5. this allows a smaller number of embryos to be transferred, thus reducing the incidents of multiple births in addition to assuring that the chromosomes that are probed are normal. 











These are 8 cell embryos and I will see if I have some more developed, particularly 32 cell embryos that are digitized otherwise I would have to scan them, however, they look very similar except there are more cells. No brain, no heart, no neural function, just cells doing what any mammalian cells do. I believe these are taken at 600X magnification. Note the tools in the photos are so small you cannot see the tips with the naked eye


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I have asked before but nobody answered but since we are hot on the "choice" debate I will float it out again. 

How can a group(party) that will abort a baby also stand up and spare the life of a convicted murderer.

Likewise a group(party) that will carry a baby to term support the exacution of a murderer.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The unborn child has committed no offense. The convict on death row has earned his punishment by his crime.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> I have asked before but nobody answered but since we are hot on the "choice" debate I will float it out again.
> 
> How can a group(party) that will abort a baby also stand up and spare the life of a convicted murderer.
> 
> Likewise a group(party) that will carry a baby to term support the exacution of a murderer.


It is a convenient contradiction by both sides of the debate.

For those who oppose abortion and favor capital punishment how do you resolve the inconsistency??


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I see no inconstancy. Will you expand on where or how you see it is .

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I see no inconstancy. Will you expand on where or how you see it is .
> 
> john


If one considers that life is sacrosanct how is the taking of any life acceptable?????

Consistency would be to protect all life, hence if you oppose abortion you should also oppose capital punishment...

Seeking enlightenment


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> If one considers that life is sacrosanct how is the taking of any life acceptable?????
> 
> Seeking enlightenment


Speaking only for myself in the case of choice I'm only concerned for the life of the innocent. 
In this regard there are laws now in effect to protect the unborn from acts of a third party against a pregnant woman making it a separate crime against the fetus or even, _in some cases,_ abuse of the fetus by the mother is a crime.

I am in the Eye for an Eye camp when it comes to the death penalty after all appeals and probability of a DNA reversal have been exhausted.


john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Speaking only for myself in the case of choice I'm only concerned for the life of the innocent.
> john


So in this regard are you comfortable with the infallibility of the criminal justice system?? 

Innocent by whose measure?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> It is a convenient contradiction by both sides of the debate.
> 
> For those who oppose abortion and favor capital punishment how do you resolve the inconsistency??


Most resolve the conflict by not putting much thought into it. 

I am a life long pro life believer that has wrestled with the internal conflict capital punishment. While I do believe there are those animals among us that should never walk the street another day of their existence I am not sure about putting them to death is the mark of an advanced civilization.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> I am not sure about putting them to death is the mark of an advanced civilization.


superb, someone who has given the issue thought and who has the nads to at least admit to the idea of the inconsistency of opposing abortion rights while endorsing capital punishment


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

EdA said:


> superb, someone who has given the issue thought and who has the nads to at least admit to the idea of the inconsistency of opposing abortion rights while endorsing capital punishment


You can make an argument against the condemned by trial and law, as there are many variables and it is not a court system of truth, but one of advocacy, but where is the argument condemning the unborn as deserving death?

Despite bbg’s photo layout and excellent explanation, there is a difference between the 8-10 cell embryo and any other random group of 8 cells. Left alone, the embryo will grow into a full sized person. Big difference.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Amazing, John and I agree on an issue. Life is sacrosanct until and unless you forfeit your right to it by some act so abominable as to deserve death. People like Ted Bundy, Charlie Manson, the Texas 7 and the Texas Railroad Killer are poster children for the death penalty. One thing execution does? ensures that the criminal in question will never have the chance to re-offend.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

gsc said:


> Despite bbg’s photo layout and excellent explanation, there is a difference between the 8-10 cell embryo and any other random group of 8 cells. Left alone, those grow into a full sized person. Big difference.



People dismiss life as an "embryo" so the can kill it with clear conscience


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> . One thing execution does? ensures that the criminal in question will never have the chance to re-offend.


Assuming the verdict is correct which, as we have learned, is not always the case. The end of life is irreversible whether a suspected criminal or an embryo. Those who choose to herald the sanctity of life should be consistent in their defense of human life.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

In my book, the execution of a convicted murderer IS protecting life, the lives of the law abiding populace he/she threatened and the lives of those who guard our prisons. Here in Md, our gov is trying to ban executions, and we currently have a case in the system where two convicts doing life are accused of the contract killing of a prison guard. Should they be convicted and aboid a death sentence, what will prevent them from killing again?

One of my friends from this area is Kirk Noble Bloodsworth, the first person on death row to be exonerated by DNA evidence, so I know the system isn't perfect. We have come a long way since the Leo Franks murder case in Georgia however.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

EdA said:


> Assuming the verdict is correct which, as we have learned, is not always the case. The end of life is irreversible whether a suspected criminal or an embryo. * Those who choose to herald the sanctity of life should be consistent in their defense of human life*.


Now this has/is becomming a topic not of "Palin" but rather one of "pregnancy" and more over "life and death" I would like to point out, based upon the above quote and "bolded type" that the same should be said for people choosing to be seen as "pro-choice" and at the same time "advocates for the abolishment of the death penality."

I do not see the advantages of a "civilized" society "choosing" to take up the cause to keep alive a person who has commited a crime so violent that a jury of their own, has deemed it necessary to commit said person to death. And in the same breath, commit "A" person who has commited "NO" crime to the same fate.

Inocent or Guilty-Civilized or Uncivilized regards,

NCA


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> Now this has/is becomming a topic not of "Palin" but rather one of "pregnancy" and more over "life and death" I would like to point out, based upon the above quote and "bolded type" that the same should be said for people choosing to be seen as "pro-choice" and at the same time "advocates for the abolishment of the death penality."
> NCA


Also an inconsistency IMO, both popular stances are inconsistent, the proponents of both arguments are equally inconsistent, if you believe that abortion is wrong (to be consistent) you should also believe that the death penalty is wrong. Conversely if you believe in abortion rights (as I do) you should also believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances (as I do). 

As always just in MHO for whatever it's worth


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

EdA said:


> Also an inconsistency IMO, both popular stances are inconsistent, the proponents of both arguments are equally inconsistent, if you believe that *abortion is wrong (to be consistent)* you should also believe that the death penalty is wrong. Conversely if you believe in abortion rights (as I do) you should also believe that *the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances (as I do). *
> As always just in MHO for whatever it's worth


And Ed, just so you know I am not picking this with you, but rather the inconsistencies in the arguement, like you for both sides.

I dont understand why there needs to be an "out" for one side and not the other...ie the bold parts that I have highlighted.

as in your use of the term..."in certain circumstances"

Because I could just as easily say..I do support the Pro-life stance and "in certain circumstances" believe in the death penalty.

Would you agree, that is an approiate statement?

NCA


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Also an inconsistency IMO, both popular stances are inconsistent, the proponents of both arguments are equally inconsistent, if you believe that abortion is wrong (to be consistent) you should also believe that the death penalty is wrong. Conversely if you believe in abortion rights (as I do) you should also believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances (as I do). 

There is no contradiction because motive changes everything.

If someone is obeying all the laws and being a careful driver,,,,and a young boy dashes out in front of the car from a blind spot,,,that driver is not a murderer because it was no fault of the drivers,,,
This driver will need lots of love and support and maby even some theropy to get over this tragity


contrast that to someone willfully aiming their car at someone and stepping on the gas and purposely killing someone.
This driver deserves a lead pill
Pete


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> as in your use of the term..."in certain circumstances"


well I thought about that (after the fact) and I concede, delete the words in certain circumstances

BTW I also think abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy is inappropriate unless the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus has a severe developmental anomaly


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

EdA said:


> well I thought about that (after the fact) and I concede, delete the words in certain circumstances
> 
> BTW I also think abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy is inappropriate unless the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus has a severe developmental anomaly


cool beans Ed....

Hindsight is always 20/20...lol

FOX...fair and balanced regards, ;-);-);-)

NCA


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ed,
I do not think that we are talking about two mutually exclusive concepts, you do.

That aside, By your own admission we agree that"the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances" .

The only thing left on the table is "choice".There are so many schools of thought on choice I prefer to compartmentalize them. the easy one to discuss is the healthy fetus healthy mother and an abortion of convenience
Certainly at some point during the pregnancy the mother and the child have an equal right to life. For a healthy fetus, some say it is at conception others say it is at (X) number of weeks and others up to full term.Others even go so far as to say that until the child is delivered it's life can be forfited in favor of the mothers

To get a baseline. 
I am down with conception in this regard, where do you stand

john


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

> BTW I also think abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy is inappropriate unless the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus has a severe developmental anomaly


That right there is the crux of the argument. The quantification/assessment of risk/severity of developmental anomoly. 

That ain't a place for the gooberment to be regards

Bubba


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> If one considers that life is sacrosanct how is the taking of any life acceptable?????


_Innocent_ life is sacrosanct. The life of a murderer is not.

What concerns me is people who cannot square the difference between the life of an innocent baby and the life of a convicted murderer.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> _Innocent_ life is sacrosanct. The life of a murderer is not.
> 
> What concerns me is people who cannot square the difference between the life of an innocent baby and the life of a convicted murderer.


Thou shall not kill. Doesn't seem to be much gray area in which to square the difference. 

I used to be a big death penalty supporter but I've changed on that. I've read numerous things that it is cheaper to do life in prison than the legal bills of putting someone to death. 

That and primarily, I don't think it is right to make the choice of death when there are other options.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> _Innocent_ life is sacrosanct. The life of a murderer is not.
> 
> What concerns me is people who cannot square the difference between the life of an innocent baby and the life of a convicted murderer.


So in your view all life is not equal?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

brian breuer said:


> Thou shall not kill. Doesn't seem to be much gray area in which to square the difference.


So you know your scripture? Then surely you also know that the very next two chapters (21-22) after that verse goes into all the cases where capital punishment is allowed! :roll:

Still can't square it? The actual contemporary translation of the Hebrew from Exodus 20:13 is "Thou shalt not murder."

If the verse was "Thou shalt not kill" we would also not be allowed to hunt or even harvest plants. We would be forced to live off of fruit, nuts, and legumes. That also is not scriptural.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> So in your view all life is not equal?


It is all about rights. We are granted rights by powers who have that authority. One of those rights is "the right to life" which comes from nature and nature's God. When a person commits a murder, that is an act against nature, and the perpetrator relinquishes that right.


----------



## svenelvis (Jul 14, 2004)

"What concerns me is people who cannot square the difference between the life of an innocent baby and the life of a convicted murderer." AmiableLabs (sorry, I don't know how to create the quotes properly)


Of greater concern for me are people who cannot square the difference between abortion, infanticide, and the taking of life of a convicted murderer.

Secondly, I find it ironic that quite often those often view themselves as being closer to "God" are so willing to appropriate acts and responsibilities they profess in the next moment should be reserved for "God" - such as the ultimate determination of innocence etc.....


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> So in your view all life is not equal?


So in your view the life of a convicted murderer is equal to the life of an innocent baby?


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I already love Sarah Palin. 

I can't believe that the press is attacking her family at ALL levels! Nor can I believe that citizens read that garbage and let it influence them. These types of attacks are because the liberal press is afraid of a straight shooter who is willing to take a stand and eliminate excesses in all forms. It scares them that a moral and conservative woman (of all things) might gain influence and make a difference in our country. 

I also find it disgusting that the women's organizations have not stepped forward and supported Ms. Palin. Women's organizations have fought for women's rights and it should not make any difference that she CHOOSES to be pro life and conservative...the right to make a choice is what many women have fought for many years...shame on those organizations.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> So in your view the life of a convicted murderer is equal to the life of an innocent baby?


I have not articulated my view of life, I have attempted to make some sense of your view which includes (what I think) is the evangelical view of life. 

If you believe that all life is sacred and that the higher being (if there is one) is loving and benevolent, how can you separate the importance any living thing from another.

Is your view of what is a life of value any more important than mine ?

to use your argument why does a human being have fewer rights than an embryo?

Please enlighten me for I am a religious novice...


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

SueLab said:


> I already love Sarah Palin.
> 
> .


Disappointments await you.

JD


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

JDogger said:


> Disappointments await you.
> 
> JD


You have no clue what you're talking about. You attack people who post here, and as far as I've been able to read, you've rarely been able to post something constructive.

Furthermore, I think Gov'r Palin is a great, wonderful, NORMAL person. [stuff] happens. I'm sure YOUR kids were perfect... just like you.

Any issues that you have on Gov'r Palin, bring them up, and anyone who can read will be able to shoot them down. SHE is as near to beyond reproach as you'll find anywhere... including our own homes.

If you have nothing constructive to say, shut up.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> I have not articulated my view of life, I have attempted to make some sense of your view which includes (what I think) is the evangelical view of life. . . . .Please enlighten me for I am a religious novice...


While it is true I am an Evangelical, I view our society as secular and therefore societal decisions related to social policy should be based on reason as opposed to faith. (Just as secularity should have no say in spiritual matters.)

I believe life begins at the point of conception because of the science of DNA. I believe in natural rights, social rights, personal rights, etc., and that while we are endowed with these rights, the powers that give them to us can take them away.

So if you are looking for someone to argue from an Evangelical Christian perspective, you got the wrong guy. I can state it. But I will not defend it.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

The pardoning of a heinous crime so as not to put to death the perpetrator and the killing of an innocent life in abortion are both acts of cowardice. 

To carry out the sentence of a perpetrator who has been correctly convicted not by an individual, but by the instruments of our society, and the saving and sparing of innocent life are acts of selflessness and courage.

IMHO


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

There are a lot of potential disappointments in this election - just three that come to mind. 

I hope that we Americans are fortunate to have elected officials that love this country in high offices and I hope that they have loved it far longer than prior to their nomination ... 

I hope that those officials also can get beyond their personal and their party's agendas when they legislate more taxes (like the World Poverty Tax that you and I will be paying; that will be sent out of our country; and will be given to the UN to manage - what a joke!).

I hope that our elected officials can recognize than private business has ALWAYS managed any program better than the federal government. Canadians come to this country for health care because they can't get timely care...thanks but no thanks to federal health care...had it in the military and it was at best borderline...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

When does human life begin? .

I think answering that question would clear up a bunch of unknown answeres.

What does science say about it? 
And more importantly what does the word of God say about it?. 
And does science back up biblical scriptures.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Pete said:


> When does human life begin? .
> 
> I think answering that question would clear up a bunch of unknown answers.
> 
> ...


Science is clueless on this one. They do not know because they do not have an emperical definition of what life is.

God has not revealed when it begins, and I am not going to try to dictact to God when it is. IMHO I think I will honor the begining which is at conception. If I am off a week or a month, or what ever, it will be His to decide not mine. He is the giver of the gift, I am just grateful we get to share in the experience.

Kids and Grandkids regards.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

gsc said:


> Science is clueless on this one. They do not know because they do not have an empirical definition of what life is.


QUOTED FOR TRUTH!

Your arrow pierced the heel. Well done!


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> While I do believe there are those animals among us that should never walk the street another day of their existence I am not sure about putting them to death is the mark of an advanced civilization.


While a life long supporter of a woman's right to choose in most cases, I find your comment enlightening.

I so want to drink beer with you.

Excellent Statement Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

EdA said:


> Also an inconsistency IMO, both popular stances are inconsistent, the proponents of both arguments are equally inconsistent, if you believe that abortion is wrong (to be consistent) you should also believe that the death penalty is wrong. Conversely if you believe in abortion rights (as I do) you should also believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances (as I do).
> 
> As always just in MHO for whatever it's worth


In contrast, I believe that both are very consistant. It's all about personal responsibility. If you get pregnant should you carry the baby to term? If you choose to kill one or many innocent people in a death penalty state what was your choice? 

People who are pro-choice and don't agree with the death penalty firmly believe that there are no REAL consequences for any action. 

People who are pro-life and support the death penalty believe that people should be aware of the possible outcomes for their decisions and then be held to that.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Page said:


> People who are pro-choice and don't agree with the death penalty firmly believe that there are no REAL consequences for any action.


WOW. Pretty broad brush you have there, isn't it Page?

So you are suggesting that everyone who is put to death is guilty of the crime they are charged with? *EVERYONE?* Are you so sure of the infallibility of the system that those within it never make a mistake? That a man or woman is NEVER convicted because of the color of their skin or their access or lack of access to resources? 

If so, how nice. *PLEASE*, give me the Lottery Numbers for tonight since you have the inside track to that which even science cannot yet determine.

I kind of go with what Patrick said: "While I do believe there are those animals among us that should never walk the street another day of their existence I am not sure about putting them to death is the mark of an advanced civilization."

Can't Believe I'm Using Patrick's Comments In My Argument Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Page said:


> People who are pro-choice and don't agree with the death penalty firmly believe that there are no REAL consequences for any action.


This would be nearly every single person in Europe. And their governments. Takes a lot of chutzpah to say what *other* people "firmly believe." 

I am pro-choice and against capital punishment because I am a realist. When abortions were illegal, there were still abortions. Women died. (I am a mother, btw.) Making abortion illegal will only create a dangerous black market for the procedure. 

Innocent people have been executed, some as recently as this year. See this story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0412090169dec09,0,4934450.story We are the last so-called civilized country that _routinely_ invokes the death penalty. While I understand the emotional component that makes us want to kill people found guilty of heinous crimes, I believe these judgments should be made with our heads and not our hearts. 

Do I think that their are real consequences for any action? Absolutely. 

Don't speak for me, Page. Your assumptions are dead wrong.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Joe S. said:


> WOW. Pretty broad brush you have there, isn't it Page?
> 
> So you are suggesting that everyone who is put to death is guilty of the crime they are charged with? *EVERYONE?* Are you so sure of the infallibility of the system that those within it never make a mistake? That a man or woman is NEVER convicted because of the color of their skin or their access or lack of access to resources?
> 
> ...


Whoa....Slow down and take a big deep breath Joe.

Someone asked the question "How can one person believe in this and not that." I was answering as to why there is not such a huge contradiction as some suggest. I was talking about the principles behind the beliefs, not the infallibility of the system. 

You don't know my abortion stance or my death penalty stance and I think you'd be surprised if you did so slow down and chill out.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm a strong advocate for the death penalty. The way revolving door justice has taken over this country, life without parole is a poor second choice. Prisoners escape, they have been known to kill guards, they sometimes get released because of errors in the trial procedure that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Only the chair or the noose assures that a killer will never kill again.

Two killings of law enforcement officers in my area come to mind: In one case a State Trooper was gunned down by a man who was later found to be nuttier than a PayDay bar. That scumbag spent the rest of his life in an institution. In the other, a Trooper was gunned down by 4 gun totin scumbags who ambushed him during a traffic stop. Sadly they got life. During their prison terms a couple of them got college degrees on the tax payers. I would have gladly thrown the switch on those 4 if the state had had the cojones to give em what they deserved.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Page said:


> Whoa....Slow down and take a big deep breath Joe.
> 
> Someone asked the question "How can one person believe in this and not that." I was answering as to why there is not such a huge contradiction as some suggest. I was talking about the principles behind the beliefs, not the infallibility of the system.
> 
> You don't know my abortion stance or my death penalty stance and I think you'd be surprised if you did so slow down and chill out.


Your words don't suggest that at all. Your words state why an entire group of people believe one way or the other. Your words staked a position on a subject. If you would like to modify those words now, then have at it, but don't revise history.

I Can Speak For Myself Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

I do not believe you can compare abortion and capital punishment. They are apples and oranges, completely different.

I believe life begins at conception. A unique, disticnt human being has been created. Choosing a chronological date or developmental stage after conception as to when the embryo is a "human" is just incrementalism This type of incrementalism is what leads to statements like BHO's wanting unsccessfully aborted babies to be left to die alone in a utility closet instead of caring for the baby because this might jepordize Roe v Wade. 

Since Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the United States over 45 million Americans have been murdered by abortion. Where would our country be today if this holocaust had not been allowed?

Tom


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Really? Where did you hear that? They didn't even conduct that 'grilling' of an interview with her until the day before they offered her the job.
> 
> I have no doubt this has and will continue to energize the base, but at the same time it is driving the undecideds to Obama. McCain screwed the pooch on this one.


I have a biggo beer that I will bet you that mccain & PALIN will win!!!


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

twall said:


> I This type of incrementalism is what leads to statements like BHO's wanting unsccessfully aborted babies to be left to die alone in a utility closet instead of caring for the baby because this might jepordize Roe v Wade.
> Tom


Tom, can you please attribute a reliable source for this statement you've made? I'm not an Obama supporter, but frankly, this doesn't seem quite credible. 

Thanks.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

twall said:


> I do not believe you can compare abortion and capital punishment. They are apples and oranges, completely different.
> 
> *Respectfully, how are they different, exactly? Don't they both, according to what you seem to believe, involve taking a life? That alone would suggest that they are at the very least similar in that respect.*
> 
> ...


Having some experience in confronting the myriad of complex issues involved with an unplanned pregnancy, I can only suggest to you and others on this board that it is a period of time that should not be wished on anyone. What it boils down to in the end, I think, is doing what you feel is right according to what you believe and what you are willing, or not willing, to carry with you for the rest of your life. Either way, a decision will be made that will NEVER be erased.

What it should not boil down to, I think, is the government forcing a course of action upon an individual when they (the nebulous they, to be sure) will not be there to do the emotional, psychological or even financial heavy-lifting required in the out years.

Before too many (more?) get on the consequences of your actions high horse, I’d just like to recommend that all sinless ones start with smaller rocks so your arm doesn’t get as tired over the continued course of the conversation.

Few Will Ever Understand Unless They Have Been There Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Larkin said:


> Tom, can you please attribute a reliable source for this statement you've made? I'm not an Obama supporter, but frankly, this doesn't seem quite credible.


Tom is giving it a lot of spin, but the gist is true.

When it was discovered that a hospital in Chicago was putting botched abortion babies born alive in a utility closet to die, federal legislators passed laws to protect them, even with pro-choice stalwarts like Barbara Boxer supporting it. 

In the IL State Senate, Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because he said it encroached on Roe v. Wade. He said he would support it if it were identical to the one that passed federally. But when that one came to his committee, he opposed that one too.

CLICK Here.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Kevin, thanks for the link. It's a worthwhile read, and I hope Tom takes the opportunity to read it through as well. 

An important (to me, anyway) passage at the end of the summary:
_Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."_


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Joe S. said:


> Before too many (more?) get on the consequences of your actions high horse, I’d just like to recommend that all sinless ones start with smaller rocks so your arm doesn’t get as tired over the continued course of the conversation.
> 
> Few Will Ever Understand Unless They Have Been There Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


For every action there is a consequence. Like it or not. That wasn't said to be condescending, it was the truth. The consequence of sex can be pregancy. I don't care what you choose to do with it after that, but you are forced to face the consequence either way. 

I am not nor have I ever been on a high horse since it's pretty clear you are attacking me for my post. 

Someone asked how something which seemed contradictory could make sense and I delivered an explaination. 

It wasn't meant to encompass all people but it offers an explaination to the question. 

Take it or leave it....I really don't care.


*....and by the way. I have been there!!! REGARDS*


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Joe,

I'll attempt to try answer your questions within my quoted post.

I believe life begins at conception because that is what I believe.

Abortion and capital punishment are similar like apples and oranges are both fruit. I have made not statements on be beliefs about capital punishment. Both abortion and capital punishment take a life. That is the only similarity between the two. There are aprroximately 3500 to 4000 abortions performed in this country daily. I don't know how many executions are performed 

As far as capital punishment being the ultimate ends of state sponsored incrementalisim I suppose that could be true. My statement was relative when life begins, I should have been clearer.

Kevin posted a link a link to Barak's statements. I posted a link on another thread for you on the same topic. My intent was not to put a spin on what he did, I may have. 

Of course abortions happened before Roe v Wade. How many? Only God knows. But, does the fact that people will always seek abortions mean they should be legal? Doesn't that line of thinking lead to everything being legal? How about drunk driving? It is illegal and people still do it. Should we recind all drunk driving laws? I don't accept the logic that just because someone is going to do something we should make it legal.




Joe S. said:


> Before too many (more?) get on the consequences of your actions high horse, I’d just like to recommend that all sinless ones start with smaller rocks so your arm doesn’t get as tired over the continued course of the conversation.
> 
> Few Will Ever Understand Unless They Have Been There Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


I'm sorry if I have come across as looking down from my high horse. I am not. Lord knows I'm a sinner and have more than one skeleton in my closet. I try not to cast judgement. I beleive sin is sin and two wrongs don't make a right. I have enough practical experience to know this for a fact. Examples will not be shared!

Tom


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> While a life long supporter of a woman's right to choose in most cases, I find your comment enlightening.
> 
> I so want to drink beer with you.
> 
> ...



I also support women's rights but also believe in the sanctity of life…doesn’t matter if that a LIFE is good, bad, inconvenient, etc. For me it is not a question of legality but a question of morality. 

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Benjamin Franklin


Have a great weekend


P.J.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

twall said:


> Joe,
> 
> I'll attempt to try answer your questions within my quoted post.
> 
> ...


Again, thanks for the civil discourse.

Better Understanding Of Your Thought Process Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## dturner (Mar 19, 2007)

I wonder how many vehement "pro life advocates" also support the idea that there should be a welfare system to protect the unwed/underprivildged mothers that will have these children. And if you don't what is to become of them?

From one who supports a woman's right to choose and jury's right to convict.

Doug


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Tom, since I was the one who said that abortion would continue whether legal or not, I'd like to address your post. When abortion is legal, it can be regulated and restricted by the government. (Rather akin to the sale of alcohol.) If it made illegal, abortion becomes the province of the black market, with no regulation, and terrible crime and danger. (Rather akin to the sale of illicit drugs.) 

I am by no means saying that abortion is a good thing, but prohibition doesn't work. In England, where the laws restricting the use of narcotics are far more lax than here, they still have drug addicts. But they don't have the insurmountable crime and the huge expense of fighting drug-related crime that we have in this country. Is that the answer? I don't know. 

But I do know that going back to the days of illegal abortion will only cause an increase in carnage. It wasn't that unusual in the days before Roe v. Wade for infants to be aborted at or near term. Some women; prostitutes, incest victims, etc. were forced to undergo abortions they didn't want. Women bled to death rather routinely. 

Doug makes such an excellent point. There's never enough money for pubic education. Child care is prohibitively expensive, especially for the working poor. Seems like there's a lot of sanctity for life while those kids are still in the womb, but once they're born, they and their mothers hardly register on our conscience. If we put more emphasis on better health care, better access to reliable contraception, better education and better options for young women, we might begin to make some progress in reducing the number of abortions sought. 

Abortion and capital punishment are certainly "hot button" issues; it's wonderful how civil everyone here has been. Have a good night.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Quote God has not revealed when it begins, and I am not going to try to dictact to God when it is. IMHO I think I will honor the begining which is at conception. If I am off a week or a month, or what ever, it will be His to decide not mine. He is the giver of the gift, I am just grateful we get to share in the experience. unquote

Actually God is very clear on when human life begins,,,,but most people are unwilling to believe what they read if it goes against commom practice. all of the answeres of the major issues of life are in the book. But it takes studying it aliitle to understand some of it.
Pete


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

I know I'm out of date , BUT WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH DOGS ?????

Perhaps many of you need to go to other parts of the web , this is RetreiverTraining.net.BY and for our dogs and associated aspects , like birds , and guns ,places to hunt etc.......


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

John,
If you wanted to read about dogs why would you expect to find that conversation under "Sarah Paiin's Pregnant Daughter GDG" ? "GDG" should be your first tip-off that there's little to no dog-related material in the thread. The rest of the title pretty well cements that. 

There's lots of threads about dogs here, go read 'em. This is just a group of people who share a common passion (retrievers) having a civil discussion about what is usually a pretty contentious topic.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

dturner said:


> I wonder how many vehement "pro life advocates" also support the idea that there should be a welfare system to protect the unwed/underprivildged mothers that will have these children. And if you don't what is to become of them?
> 
> From one who supports a woman's right to choose and jury's right to convict.
> 
> Doug


Doug -

Are you suggesting their is NEVER a place for a welfare system in society or just that welfare/public assistance should not become a way of life and "reward" what is generally considered counterproductive behavior?

Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Pete said:


> God has not revealed when it begins, and I am not going to try to dictact to God when it is. IMHO I think I will honor the begining which is at conception.
> 
> Pete


Pete,

Me too. I doubt that God finds either the _start point_, or the _sanctity_ of life arguable, don't you? I'm bettin' "yes".

Some will always strain at gnats regards...

Evan


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Just a thought, here.....a fetus at 8 weeks/12 weeks/6 months is the same fetus that developed when the sperm met the egg, right? Those subsequent months are merely growth stages of that now-living thing, regardless of someone's attempt to determine its viability.

It _amazes_ me what we (mankind in general) think we're in control of regards, 

kg


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

From Factcheck.org:
What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_would_happen_if_the_supreme_court.html


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Evan said:


> Pete,
> 
> Me too. I doubt that God finds either the _start point_, or the _sanctity_ of life arguable, don't you? I'm bettin' "yes".
> 
> ...


Evan -

How do you square that with the death penalty?

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *Pete*
> _God has not revealed when it begins, and I am not going to try to dictact to God when it is. IMHO I think I will honor the begining which is at conception.
> 
> Pete_
> ...


Even
That wasn't my quote I was quoting someone else

The bible is pretty clear on the subject of when human life begins
And it may just go against what many christians believe.

Just a tit bit ,,,but God refers to Jesus as a "holy thing" in Luke

But there are records of abortion committed by violence from strange men perpetrated on a woman and the sentence was a small fine. Not death as it would have been if it were an act of murder.

Also the parameters are clearly specified as the beginning of life from genesis clear through most of the bible. 
Its a very touchy subject and is not taught by any religion that I can think of.

Now,, I can give chapter and verse on this subject , You can easily buy books on hebrew idiums,ancient judean culture, concordances,lexicons, greek interlinears and a wide variety of research books. And anyone with a desire can see it for themselves

But a public forum is not the place to exibit.
It would be trashed by those who never study,,, kind of like someone who never FF arguing why the hech do I need to force my dog already retrieves kind of thing. The dialog would never be agreeable by the two.

I'm just letting people know that there are real answeres to lifes issues,, and sometimes its not what we think they are. I believe morality comes from God word and morality is known from the studying of the scriptures and believing and practicing what one has just learned.


These are handed down from generation to generation. But alot of morality is learned in a religious atmoshere,, also and sometimes relgion does a disservice buy bending and manipulating scripture(weather by accident or out of appathy or whatever. So things change over the generations. Some prefer to take things out of context or they have their own idea about something and privately interpret them.

I didn't write this to start an argument. Good People can believe what they want and make their own choices in life.

So matter what ones belief I prefer to think that The auther of the best selling book has the answeres.

Pete


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> From Factcheck.org:
> What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade?
> http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_would_happen_if_the_supreme_court.html


When Pro-Life (or Anti-Abortion, if you prefer) people talk of overturning Roe v. Wade, it seems unlikely that they would stop at simply removing the federal protection of a woman's right to choose. If your moral base is that life begins at conception, then overturning Roe v. Wade is only a step along the path to making abortion illegal in any circumstance in all states. 

Then of course, we'll have a whole 'nother set of problems: more women dead or injured from unregulated procedures (or "do-it-yourself" methods), more late term abortions, more infanticide, more abandoned babies, more child abuse, more women and children living in poverty. 

It is my supreme hope that the people who have fought so hard (whatever their inspiration) to restrict the access to safe and legal termination of pregnancy will step up to the plate to address these collateral issues, but frankly, no one should hold their breath.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

It depends on your state laws. Maryland has already enacted law that provides if Roe v Wade is overturned then the right to abortion will remain the same in the Peoples Republic. I do not agree with the legislation, but I do agree that the entire issue belongs with the several states and not the Federal Govt. Its far easier to change state laws than it is to change those of the Federal govt. Griswold v Conn, the decision that Roe v Wade is based on, vis a vis the 'right to privacy' was made of whole cloth and not based on the Constitution, but on the interpretation of it by activist judges.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Regardless of your opinion its nice to see a thread thats so filled with passion be discussed in a adult and considerate manner. 

One of the things that bothers me is for some their moral compass is so screwed up that living in a state that still has the death penalty is not a deterrent. I live in a suburb of a large metropolitin area and almost every night on the news another murder is comitted. I am afraid that the lack of respect for life human or otherwise is taken for granted.


----------



## tpaschal30 (Oct 11, 2005)

Steve Amrein said:


> Regardless of your opinion its nice to see a thread thats so filled with passion be discussed in a adult and considerate manner.
> 
> One of the things that bothers me is for some their moral compass is so screwed up that living in a state that still has the death penalty is not a deterrent. I live in a suburb of a large metropolitin area and almost every night on the news another murder is comitted. I am afraid that the lack of respect for life human or otherwise is taken for granted.


 It is not a deterrant because it takes 15 years to execute someone. It also needs to be sped up and nationally televised. One thing is for sure the rate of recidivism is low when applied.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The threat of execution is probably no deterrant, but it significantly reduces the chances that the convict will re-offend.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Evan -
> 
> How do you square that with the death penalty?
> 
> ...


Joe,

I don't square the two because I believe it would be like squaring apples and oranges. I'm sure we both fully realize that we don't live in a perfect world, so we know the justice system is not perfect. But the standards are appropriately high. I hope for more perfect processes, but still support the death penality under current criteria. But death row inmates have all had access to due process.

Unborn children have no such access. The due process offered to the unborn is merely a decision by the mother to conclude whether this baby is convenient enough to let live or inconvenient enough to murder.

Yes, I'm aware of the circumstances of rape, incest and mother endangerment. But current figures show that only 1% of abortions are performed on women as a result of rape or incest. The rest is largely elective execution/infantacide.

Inocent baby? Convicted murder? Apple meet orange. Always good to converse with you, Joe. 

Kind regards back at ya',

Evan


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Evan said:


> Inocent baby? Convicted murder? Apple meet orange. Always good to converse with you, Joe.
> 
> Kind regards back at ya',
> 
> Evan


OK. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

I think we live in the greatest country in world under the best governing system in the world...I think that is something we can all agree on.

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.


----------

