Maverick? - Page 3

jallman · 09-03-08, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

Are you sober when you make these ridiculous arguments? She is rabidly pro-life. If you are pro-life, you think abortion should be illegal in all cases. If you simply think its a choice that should not be imposed upon others, as you are portraying it, then by definition, you are pro-choice.

As to what legislation she has backed,

1. She has only been in office for a year and a half.

2. Its a federal issue right now so such legislation would be pointless.

She has clearly stated her beliefs on the matter though, and obviously once in federal office she would push for a supreme court that shared her views and push the RNC platform that now calls for a ban on all abortions under all circumstances.

So in other words, you can't point to any evidence that she has used her office to push an extreme pro-life stance. Next, please?

SouthernDemocrat · 09-03-08, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

So in other words, you can't point to any evidence that she has used her office to push an extreme pro-life stance. Next, please?

How would she? Its a federal issue right now. She stated her beliefs. Her belief is that Abortion should be illegal in all cases including rape and incest. The only time it should be legal in her view is when the mothers life is at risk.

Do you dispute that?

jallman · 09-03-08, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

How would she?

Uh, she is the chief executive of Alaska. I can't think of a more convenient platform from which to pronounce and support a belief one wants to support.

Quote:

Its a federal issue right now.

And? You don't think individual pro-life states have their means of restricting abortion rights? Shall we ask South Dakota about that?

Quote:

She stated her beliefs.

Yes...her beliefs.

Quote:

Her belief is that Abortion should be illegal in all cases including rape and incest. The only time it should be legal in her view is when the mothers life is at risk.

Okay. That's her belief.

Quote:

Do you dispute that?

I'm not disputing the woman's beliefs because I'm pro-choice and believe that her choice is just as valid as the woman who walks around with a coat hanger permanently sticking out of her cooch.

Now, back to the question; can you show any speech, legislative support, cut in funding, policy, etc, etc, that would lead you to the conclusion that Sarah Palin has attempted to enforce her beliefs on others? Yes or no? A simple yes (with examples) or no.

jallman · 09-03-08, 12:40 PM

Hey, super mondo intellectual guy...I'm still waiting.

aps · 09-03-08, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

I looked it up, you are right 90% do.

Holy moses!

talloulou · 09-03-08, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

I looked it up, you are right 90% do.

Yeah, I knew this because as I said they thought my daughter might have down syndrome. They wanted me to have an amnio test done to better assess the situation but I explained I didn't want to take even the slight risks involved with the amnio test given that I didn't plan on aborting even if she did in fact test positive.

They seemed shocked and while they didn't push me towards having an abortion they did heavily suggest I was insane. They basically tried to push me into having the amino test done so I would know whether or not my daughter really had down syndrome. They claimed I could not understand the weight of my decision to carry through with the pregnancy without having all the facts. According to my midwife, who I did love by the way, it was one thing to say you were ok with a baby that "might" have down syndrome and a whole other thing to be ok with a baby that does definitely have down syndrome. She then went on to explain that down syndrome babies are mostly aborted and that services and support in relation to having a down syndrome child have dwindled significantly due to the fact that they are mostly aborted. She was very nice about the whole thing. But I was treated as sort of a reckless mentally deficient woman for not caring one way or another. It was almost as if bringing a down syndrome child into the world was distasteful so I should definitely have the amnio and find out for sure.

I didn't have the amnio and thankfully she was fine. I don't know if they would have discussed abortion more had I had the test and gotten a definitive positive.

My midwife did point out to me that it is perfectly understandable to NOT go through with a down syndrome pregnancy when I could just abort, try again, and have a normal baby.

She was very nice and patient but the whole thing was a trying experience and I really was treated as an insane person.

Goobieman · 09-03-08, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Common Sense

The post suggested that Sarah Palin's children would be the real mavericks if she was VP.

I think the point was that Sarah should tend to the family that needs her first and foremost.

Teenage pregnancy and a baby with special needs does require a parent's full attention.

I'm --sure-- all the self-styled feminists here on DP will take exceptional issue with this.

Felicity · 09-03-08, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

Yeah, I knew this because as I said they thought my daughter might have down syndrome. They wanted me to have an amnio test done to better assess the situation but I explained I didn't want to take even the slight risks involved with the amnio test given that I didn't plan on aborting even if she did in fact test positive.

They seemed shocked and while they didn't push me towards having an abortion they did heavily suggest I was insane. They basically tried to push me into having the amino test done so I would know whether or not my daughter really had down syndrome. They claimed I could not understand the weight of my decision to carry through with the pregnancy without having all the facts. According to my midwife, who I did love by the way, it was one thing to say you were ok with a baby that "might" have down syndrome and a whole other thing to be ok with a baby that does definitely have down syndrome. She then went on to explain that down syndrome babies are mostly aborted and that services and support in relation to having a down syndrome child have dwindled significantly due to the fact that they are mostly aborted. She was very nice about the whole thing. But I was treated as sort of a reckless mentally deficient woman for not caring one way or another. It was almost as if bringing a down syndrome child into the world was distasteful so I should definitely have the amnio and find out for sure.

I didn't have the amnio and thankfully she was fine. I don't know if they would have discussed abortion more had I had the test and gotten a definitive positive.

My midwife did point out to me that it is perfectly understandable to NOT go through with a down syndrome pregnancy when I could just abort, try again, and have a normal baby.

She was very nice and patient but the whole thing was a trying experience and I really was treated as an insane person.

I reject the quad test every time BECAUSE they are not very accurate and I don't want to deal with that pressure. I got it when I had my first two kids and I too experienced the feeling (not directly stated, but so persistent as to suggest it) the staff and doctors thought i was nuts when i refused the amnio (especially at my tender age of barely 20). Abortion is never an option in my mind, so the test is pointless. I might consider it if there were a history of severe defects (not Down's) in my family just to be prepared, but it still wouldn't effect a decision to abort. (And before it's asked--No--not even if the baby has no chance of survival or would be in need of institutionalization for life).

Felicity · 09-03-08, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

I'm --sure-- all the self-styled feminists here on DP will take exceptional issue with this.

29 posts and no "self-styleds" have yet--only a stay at home mom and a Catholic w/ a gaggle of kids.

Oh yeah--and some men!

aps · 09-03-08, 08:33 PM

Someone made an excellent point about McCain and being a maverick in a letter to the editor in today's New York Times:

Quote:

In John McCain’s first major decision as a presidential candidate, instead of appointing the running mate he wants, he caves in to the religious right and appoints someone he doesn’t know and barely vetted.

This is not the action of a “maverick,” this is toadyism plain and simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/op...ml?ref=opinion

John McCain stopped being a maverick and is, instead, a panderer. Ewwww.