The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Sam Stein: Palin On Abortion
huffingtonpost.com — In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.
slorenzo- 940 diggs
- digg it
- duckley, on 09/01/2008, -12/+94Maybe that's why Palin is a grandmother now...
- DD2CC2U, on 09/01/2008, -3/+12DNA teat would proove who is the father of Palin's 5th child.
- rald84, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6but would it actually reveal anything new? :-O
- DaviDTC, on 09/01/2008, -5/+1Might be my lack of knowledge on this, but how would a dna test of the father prove who the mother is? The entire thing was about Sarah being the mother or the grandmother. What if it was incest? Sarahs husband would show up as the dad there, but that wouldn't rule out Sarah not being the mother right? I completely understand why 99.999999% of the time there is no need for the mother to be dna tested, but this entire talk was about who was mother, not the father.
- duckley, on 09/01/2008, -3/+11I wonder who Bristol's boyfriend was?
Who's the father of Trig?- Rotzooi, on 09/01/2008, -7/+22George W. Bush? Would explain the Down Syndrome.
- oveedrx, on 09/01/2008, -3/+3Your comment sounds like its from Jerry Springer or Maury
- Xihix, on 09/01/2008, -11/+5I wonder how much of an ass you feel like right now.
- h3llscaper, on 09/01/2008, -4/+7for being honest?
- xander, on 09/01/2008, -4/+2//Maybe that's why Palin is a grandmother now...
And that is somehow a bad thing?- DanMiller, on 09/01/2008, -1/+8It is when you are the grandmother of a child mothered by a minor who should be in school learning rather than carrying a baby.
- sodoh, on 09/01/2008, -1/+5@Xander.. Well yea, when you consider the child is born out of wedlock to the daughter of a woman who feels abstinence only contraception works. Stays quiet about it until some internet rumour pulls it to the front and then solves it with a shotgun wedding. Same rumour pointing out her total disgard for the health of her unborn child.
Yea its a bad thing.
- DD2CC2U, on 09/01/2008, -3/+12DNA teat would proove who is the father of Palin's 5th child.
- Lspook63, on 09/01/2008, -13/+93This woman is such a disaster. What if your daughter were raped by your husband or one of her brothers? Still force her to have the baby? Even if you knew she would die during delivery? That's no only illogical, it's evil.
And don't even get me started on sex-education. I'm sure she's in the camp of birth control being abortion so we should outlaw the pill and condoms. Let's see how wonderful that makes the lives of women and children in our country.- Doxocopa, on 09/01/2008, -14/+9Sir
Is the baby culprit of his mother rape???- pintomp3, on 09/01/2008, -6/+13http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg
^ not a baby. - kelly, on 09/01/2008, -9/+6pintomp3,
And according to your supporters, this is also not a baby.
http://tinyurl.com/5vg4dp - datdamonfoo, on 09/01/2008, -5/+3@kelly,
Yum, makes me hungry! - sodoh, on 09/01/2008, -2/+5So the trauma of the rape not being enough she has to bring to term a baby that every day for all those months will remind her of that rape. Then you have an unwanted child put into adoption growing up wondering what their parents were really like and if they are lucky they will never find out.
I mean I can understand some of the reasons for being anti-abortion but a lot of the times there is sheer short sightedness of screw everyone else except the baby.
For example in Ireland many years ago when Abortion was a huge no-no if it came down to the life of the mother or the baby, the baby would always get preference even if it was known the child would not live much longer then the mother. In any other case the doctor would take preference to the person who was most likely to live.
That law was changed in Ireland though (Doctor can save the mother if believes she has the better chance of life, or the baby puts her life in danger). - flip2trip, on 09/01/2008, -5/+3"....screw everyone else except the baby."---sodoh
Yes!! Now you get it skippy! The baby isn't at fault. The baby is innocent and no one speaks for them.
Funny, liberals don't want to kill the rapist but would rather toss the baby in the trash. - homercles337, on 09/01/2008, -2/+2Its not a "baby" you dopes.
- Doxocopa, on 09/01/2008, -1/+3Folks
Just one tip.. before taking a definitive opinion on this "issue" this is a must see for really grasping that there is an innocent third party involved and it fights like hell for his life:
"The Silent Scream" by a doctor who performed thousands of abortions until echography come along and he himself saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THS2zZ4m260
There is appalling suffering INSIDE the womb, also... why solve a suffering situation by promoting another one??? - And this late suffering also affects the would-be-mother, just Google "post-abortion syndrome" If the child is unwanted, could be adopted... Mother Teresa's Sisters constantly offer that "service" to unwanted children. - andrewtheart, on 09/01/2008, -3/+4http://unbornperson.org/section_3.htm
DEFINITION: An organism is a living, natural, individual being, whose parts are coordinated among themselves and subordinated to the independent and self serving functions of the whole.
http://unbornperson.org/section_2.htm
It might be difficult to visualize the zygote of a multi-celled species as being an organism. Yet it is an autonomous whole and numerically distinct from its parents. A chicken zygote, in the incubator, in virtue of its own vital forces and under the guidance of its own genetic information uses the materials which it finds available within the confines of the eggshell to initiate, by cell-division and cell-differentiation, its embryonic development. The chicken, in its one-cell, zygotic stage of life is already an organism, however immature it may be at that time. It takes the necessary first step and it takes it in the right direction. Compatible with its small degree of maturity, it manifests individual autonomy and self-sufficiency.
http://unbornperson.org/section_3.htm
Biologists agree that, even from the zygote stage, the conceptus behaves as an independent, though immature, organism, developing itself from within, needing the mother, now, only by way of environment. They make no distinction among zygotes of any species, turnip or man, when they state that the one-cell stage is already a new organism, the offspring of its two parents, and is of the same species as they are. Philosophers come to the same conclusion by reasoning from the natural purpose of reproduction: to bring into existence new individuals of the same species as the parents. To this the biologists add their observation that the zygote, because it is an essentially independent organism, is already the offspring intended by that natural process of reproduction.
To the philosopher and biologist, the period of gestation and consequent birth add nothing specific to the offspring, maturity being a difference of degree, not of kind. Modern scientists find no valid reason for applying the term "potential human" to the conceptus, if the expression is used to imply that the conceptus is not a human being. With the help of the geneticist, they find the conceptus, at all stages of its existence, to be the very same organism which the parents conceived and which, after birth, continues to mature until adulthood.
http://unbornperson.org/ is in general a very good site for the philosophical perspective on this issue. - bsmang, on 09/01/2008, -2/+1who cares?
- andrewtheart, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Who cares about *insert random issue important to bsmang here*?
- bsmang, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I meant who cares if the baby was a "culprit"... Obviously it was not. But either way it's irrelevant. Choice of whether to abort or not should be up to the rapee (or to any other impregnated female and in many cases the potential father as well) and not the courts.
- pintomp3, on 09/01/2008, -6/+13http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg
- sulthernao, on 09/01/2008, -5/+16Palin is well out of the mainstream: "An October 2007 FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll says that by a 70-21 margin, Americans believe that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest."
- flip2trip, on 09/01/2008, -2/+3I thought you leftists didn't trust Fox news? Oh yeah, I forgot, only when they say what YOU want to hear.
- andrewtheart, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2What's your point? The mainstream is *usually* braindead... not surprising.
- WatW, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3What's important is whether she is right. Not mainstream. Why have we all forgotten that?
- WatW, on 09/01/2008, -8/+7Digg me down but good for her. I think anyone who says "abortion is wrong, but only if it doesn't inconvenience me" is a hypocrite. If you believe abortion is murder, which I do, why would it be ok just because you were raped?
Not to mention that it's beyond me how people ever convinced themselves that killing a baby is ok just because it hasn't been born yet.- sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -4/+12Ah yes, nothing like that little miracle from God that is the seed of a rapist. Isn't life just beautiful?
- WatW, on 09/01/2008, -6/+2So your argument is that the baby is the son/daughter of a rapist so it should die?
- omgbanana, on 09/01/2008, -2/+12We no longer live in the dark ages. We don't live in a time where we pitch birthed children off a cliff. We don't live in a time where you must carry no matter what happens.
The quality of life of a raped 15 year old girl and her child would probably not be exceptionally high. Why burden everyone involved when a few cells can be flushed from the body.
We are the culmination of our experiences, and unfortunately a cluster of a few scores of cells is not very useful or sacred. Rather than throw away those cells, you'd let others suffer? - sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -2/+13My argument is that someone shouldn't have to live with the horrific reminder of their brutal rape for the rest of their lives. Nothing is "dying" unless you're getting the abortion at around month six of a pregnancy, which I certainly do not support.
- thecwin, on 09/01/2008, -3/+2I think we should abort all rape-babies and castrate convicted rapists. We should use natural selection to help cut rape incidence; what better way than make it a complete disadvantage to rape someone?
:) Just kidding. Though, people should not be forced to give birth to something they had no choice in creating. - kelly, on 09/01/2008, -7/+2You people never even consider that the baby can be given up for adoption.
- Syraxis, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6@Kelly
Why would you adopt it? No? I didn't think so, maybe you should stop trying to enforce your moral beliefs on everyone else. Why is it wrong to flush away some unwanted cells by lets say a rapist for example? Can you give me an answer that doesn't involve any religious beliefs? - DivisibleByZero, on 09/01/2008, -5/+1From my viewpoint, it's not that it's murder so much as it is negligence of responsibility. The "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is fine and well until there are kids depending on you keeping your body in shape. You bring a kid into the world, you have to take care of it.
So in the case of rape, it wasn't your actions that started the whole mess, and is therefore not your responsibility. It would of course be a very nice thing to keep the baby, but shouldn't be required. - flip2trip, on 09/01/2008, -5/+3@Syraxis--I would adopt the baby.
"Why is it wrong to flush away some unwanted cells by lets say a rapist for example? Can you give me an answer that doesn't involve any religious beliefs?"
I'll answer your question if you will answer a qualifying question for me. Do you believe that human life is unique? That is, do you think each human life that is born is unique and will not occur again? - WatW, on 09/01/2008, -3/+3@syraxis - "Why would you adopt it?"
Yes, If I was able, I would adopt every last one of them. I have 4 kids of my own and can't handle any more but there are TONS of people out there who want to adopt babies!!! Abortion is just a way for an irresponsible person to not have to deal with their mistakes and fact that it's legal is the ONLY reason you can justify it. Abortion being legal does not make it right.
I'm sick of this "we don't live in the dark ages" crap. Because we are more civilized we should be taking a step forward and stop calling a baby "a few cells". I guess you are just a "few more cells". Who are you to say that you are more valuable than that baby?
The fact is, babies whether born or unborn are still human life and should have the same rights to live that you have. No matter the circumstances. We can't just go on aborting them because it's a hassle for us. There has to be another way to handle the situation. - gymbrall, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5@ the collection of cells operating under the name Syraxis
You want a non-religious answer to the question of aborting a collection of unwanted cells? How about you give me a non-religious answer as to why any human or group of humans can't be disposed of at any given time? Human Suffering? It's the production and processing of chemicals, nothing more. Surely you don't think chemicals can be moral? Ethics? That's a made up word, it doesn't actually exist, it just operates in that realm that we have chosen to call the mind.
If you believe that there is nothing that transcends matter, then you can have no objection to anyone's death or destruction. At best, your objections to your own death are nothing more than an attempt to get others to play life by your rules.
- omgbanana, on 09/02/2008, -2/+1The difference, as already stated, is that a random human has been around for years and has a capacity to change the world around it. Even a newborn can move and interact.
If you're against these cells being killed, what about animals? Trees? Their basic function is the same. The point of the times no longer being the dark ages is that we can solve the problem by flushing some cells by increasing hormone doses rather than throwing a baby off a cliff. - gymbrall, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2@omgbanana
You are the one who has to try to make an argument as to why a tree can be burnt for fuel and a person cannot. A religious man knows why - image of God and all that. You tell yourself and your children little lies about innate morality and a society's growing consciousness of goodness, but you know deep down that they are just that, lies, lies, and more lies, and what's more, you hope desperately that *your* children do not call society's bluff.
This whole thing about the dark ages is a smoke screen, the real question (and one that you cannot satisfactorily answer - I am assuming you are an atheist) is, why was it bad to throw the baby off the cliff? Why would it be evil to do that all? What's more, once you have made your argument for what is good and what is evil, why should I, a completely independent organism with my own sets of inputs take what you say with any authority at all? Why shouldn't I just kill you?
- bwdd, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2Hey, it's not gonna be so good for the guys either.
- melkat, on 09/01/2008, -6/+0Get to know the truth before the spout lies. She is pro birth control. She is also prochoice when the mother's life is in danger.
- Doxocopa, on 09/01/2008, -14/+9Sir
- teessidedazza, on 09/01/2008, -9/+16Ah...is this the Dukakis moment of 2008?
- scot333, on 09/01/2008, -14/+2you mean Do-*****-Kiss? lololol
- schoate09, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5Do you live with your mother?
- scot333, on 09/01/2008, -2/+2Do you eat your own feces?
- bsmang, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1If so, it would make for a great sigh of relief.
- scot333, on 09/01/2008, -14/+2you mean Do-*****-Kiss? lololol
- cubedw00t, on 09/01/2008, -8/+34what a nutcase... someone please ask her how long we should incarcerate or how much we should fine women for an abortion, maybe we should give them lashings?
- kelly, on 09/01/2008, -11/+2The mother didn't do the killings. She just allowed the killer to murder her baby.
Sure, not something warranting lashings or equivalent, however I would HOPE that this fact sticks with the mother for the rest of her life.- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+13Kelly, are you really incapable of discussing abortion without using utterly dishonest and manipulative language? I really do tire of your childish tactics.
First, abortion is not murder, and anyone who says so is lying. Murder is a legal term that is subject to a legal definition. Murder as a criminal act does not include abortion. So please, stop your lying.
Second, it is disgusting that you want to punish women - even emotionally rather than physically - for taking control of their own lives. Many women have abortions and feel no remorse, knowing that they made the best possible choice given their situation. Why don't you mind your own business instead of trying to shame responsible and mature women? - kelly, on 09/02/2008, -6/+1So what you're telling me is that murder is just a legal term and not an incredibly immoral act. By that understanding, if it suddenly became legal to kill 5 your old children thereby disallowing the term murder from being an appropriate label for the terrible act, are you saying you would be okay with it... or are you saying its just as terrible and just quibbling with the term I used. Either way, you don't support your own argument.
If your definition of taking control of ones own life includes ending the life of another then I find it insane that you would consider MY understanding the one thats disgusting.
I feel for those women that have abortions that feel no remorse as they've been mislead by most liberals to think that they didn't just turn over their baby to a killer.
As long as innocent babies are being killed senselessly I will NOT NOT NOT "mind my own business." - bsmang, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7Idiot. Yes, please mind your own business. Babies are almost never killed. Abortions happen, sure, but almost never is a living, breathing baby killed except maybe by some deranged Christian girls who don't want to be excommunicated by their families, so they hide it and have the babies normally and then try to flush them or toss them in the trash or something.
- kayala, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Kelly, you're deliberately misunderstanding and you're putting words in my mouth. Can you really not restrain yourself from stooping to dishonest tactics? Can you really not debate your own point on its own merits? I suggest that you find a little more integrity before returning, juvenile.
If a law were suddenly passed that made it legal to kill 5-year-olds, then the act of killing 5-year-olds would no longer be called murder. People would not be brought to trial for the murder of any 5-year-olds, so it would no longer be called murder. It's a legal word and has a specific definition, dumbass. You're trying to put words in my mouth, and you're failing.
You also hurt your argument when you blame the liberals. You're not just dishonorable and dishonest, you're intellectually lazy, Kelly. Rather than seeing the world in color, you watch in black and white. You're too lazy to make distinctions between individuals, preferring to lump them all together in a group and ignore the differences that make them each unique.
Your understanding is the disgusting one, indeed, Kelly. Your understanding would have women subjugated once more, reduced to nothing more than baby-makers because you would rob them of their bodily integrity and their autonomy.
By the way, little weasel, I've asked you numerous times to stop lying and using manipulative language to make your point. If your argument can stand on its own merits, let it do so, and cut the crap. - Evilena, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5"So what you're telling me is that murder is just a legal term and not an incredibly immoral act."
Murder is a legal term. Most of the time murder is an incredibly immoral act.
"if it suddenly became legal to kill 5 your old children thereby disallowing the term murder from being an appropriate label for the terrible act, are you saying you would be okay with it"
I wouldn't have 5 year old children in the first place. Hypothetically though, I would not be okay with killing them if it were legal. I would also not be okay with calling their killing murder if it became legal.
That would be an example of flawed logic. - Squidwalk, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5"As long as innocent babies are being killed senselessly I will NOT NOT NOT "mind my own business."(sic)"
So is your chosen course of action is to go on the internet and make broad generalizations about liberals. Then to use emotionally evocative language without a hint of a logical argument to condemn people holding an opposing view.
What do you hope to accomplish? You won't convince anyone like this. Think of how you would consider some one else who uses disparaging terms when describing your beliefs. You'd disregard them, as I and anyone else who prescribes to logic disregards you.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+13Kelly, are you really incapable of discussing abortion without using utterly dishonest and manipulative language? I really do tire of your childish tactics.
- kelly, on 09/01/2008, -11/+2The mother didn't do the killings. She just allowed the killer to murder her baby.
- MadKennyP, on 09/01/2008, -4/+30Let's ask her: What is the proper prison term for a woman who has had an abortion?
- boxlight, on 09/01/2008, -6/+15In her defense, Palin is not saying abortion should be illegal, she's simply saying she doesn't think it's right -- especially for her daughter.
If someone believes that a fetus == a child (just not born yet) then it's perfectly consistent to believe that a fetus resulting from a rape == a child. She thinks aborting the fetus is wrong. Why isn't she allowed to feel this way?- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -7/+18Because she "feels" that everybody else should "feel" the same way as she does.
- gotacalc, on 09/01/2008, -7/+13Palin enforces her beliefs on other. Why else would she support teaching creationism in schools?
- bagelmaster, on 09/01/2008, -5/+14She's allowed to feel that way and we're allowed to tell her she's wrong, a fetus isn't a child.
- HonestAbe, on 09/01/2008, -0/+10Lots of pro-choice people believe that abortion isn't right. The whole point of being pro-life is that you want abortion legally treated as murder, which means prison for doctors and young mothers.
- flip2trip, on 09/01/2008, -6/+1"Lots of pro-choice people believe that abortion isn't right."
Biggest horse$hi+ post on digg I've seen today. - somnambulator, on 09/01/2008, -0/+7flip you dick, of course abortion isn't right, in fact it's downright horrific. If I saw one I would definitely lose my lunch.
But that's not the point!!!!
There is no black and white, right or wrong answers here. There is a grey bit and that's OK.
Personally I think that a woman should have an abortion ASAP if it's going to happen at all. She should be presented with all the alternatives as well (not have them preached to her, but rationally explained).
She should go into it with as much info on the subject as possible.
Late term abortions should be rare as hens teeth and reserved for exceptional circumstances (which I'm led to believe they are).
But for all that, the one overriding fact is that women have CHOICE, as in pro-choice, not pro-abortion. There will always be times when abortion is necessary, it's human nature, we are an imperfect creature.
If you seriously think that any of us pro-CHOICERS actually want abortions to happen, then you are a very sick person indeed. - kayala, on 09/02/2008, -0/+7somnambulator, to be fair, if an ordinary person saw any surgical procedure, lunch would definitely end up on the floor. It's never pleasant to watch a surgeon stick sharp metal instruments inside a person's body, cutting and pulling and twisting and mangling... If you really wanted to, you could make an appendectomy or a nose job sound like something straight from a horror flick. Naturally, just because something sounds gruesome when you only mention the gross details and not the net benefit does not mean that that particular something should be banned; it's a deliberate manipulation of the facts, picking out which details will fit the pre-designed mold.
Analogy time! Have you seen any of those re-cut trailers on Youtube? There's one where they take specific scenes from "The Shining" and rearrange them into a trailer for a happy movie called "Shining," about a boy's reconnection with his father. Same deal here - take a bit of material here and a bit there, rearrange it, make up a new story, and call it good. But in the arena of abortion, it's anything but good. - ozydingo, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5"Have you seen any of those re-cut trailers on Youtube?"
I liked this one particularly, perhaps just because it went in a different direction from the horror-to-romantic-comedy ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAoqOCQlb0E - somnambulator, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5Kayala, you're right, I wasn't singling abortion out as especially horrific, just confessing a queasiness in general to surgical procedures.
But I was trying to point out to flip et al that even though I am pro-choice I would be deeply affected by an abortion, not sitting in the hospital viewing gallery with a six-pack and a rattle chanting "bring 'em on" as he and others would like to believe. - flip2trip, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1"flip you dick, of course abortion isn't right, in fact it's downright horrific."
Then your position is indefensible.
- pintomp3, on 09/01/2008, -4/+6or ask her what other religion defines life as starting at conception. defining it according to christian interpretation is a violation of separation of church and state.
- ryan83189, on 09/01/2008, -6/+3And defining it to another isn't? It would not even be a violation of church and state to express that your opinion is based upon religion, it's called being forthcoming.
- pintomp3, on 09/01/2008, -0/+9you are free to define it for yourself based on religion. you cannot pass laws based on religion.
- sodoh, on 09/01/2008, -0/+8Don't stop there MadKennyP. Lets ask her does she think women should be detained if they try to leave their state/country if it is believed they may get an abortion? What if you don't know? Detain anyway?
Or how about how they plan to pay for all the unwanted children (800k a year based on pro-choice websites or 1.4 million from pro-life websites). Adoption rates are only around 200K a year.
She wants a Christian version of Iran.
- boxlight, on 09/01/2008, -6/+15In her defense, Palin is not saying abortion should be illegal, she's simply saying she doesn't think it's right -- especially for her daughter.
- cersad, on 09/01/2008, -6/+30Worse than her abrotion views are her views on contraception. She doesn't want to teach teenagers how to not impregnate themselves so that the abortion question isn't an issue to them? It's almost like she's forcing teenage motherhood.
- dinot, on 09/01/2008, -4/+19AHA! Now you're seeing the GOP tactic. Flood the US with populations of stupid, and they'll be in power forever.
- sdavids, on 09/01/2008, -13/+1Whereas the Democrats try to give amnesty to all illegal immigrants so they can live off of our welfare and be given free socialized health care just so they can get another 20 million more votes. Who will flip the bill? Oh well its the big bad corporations that employ everyone, news flash... they might realize it is much cheaper to go somewhere else than to be taxed an absurd amount, hence we lose jobs. Then why don't we tax the wealthiest 5% of Americans, they are already paying 60% of the income taxes anyways, they don't deserve all their money anyways, how dare they live out the American dream? Recipe for success right there, lets see how much free stuff we can give out to those who don't pay for any of the services anyways. Complete welfare state here we come.
- tankrunner1123, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6Wow this is a boat load of fail. This topic has nothing to do with Democrats or Illegal Immigration.
- sulthernao, on 09/01/2008, -2/+17She doesn't want married couples to use contraceptives either.
- kelly, on 09/01/2008, -8/+2Ya, because all teens have sex and we should never teach them to wait till marriage.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+10It's unrealistic. It's not our fault that you can't look at a situation rationally and make logical decisions. You can trot out your idealistic visions of 25-year-old virgins at the altar, but that's simply not how it works. Even back in the idyllic 50's, people tended to marry straight out of high school! Can you guess why they might have been so desperate to enter into the only union which sanctioned sex?
Fact is, most teens do have sex, and it's impossible to stop them. I'd like to see you try; even your preferred mode of scaring teens off sex, which consists of lying to them, exaggerating risks, understating the effectiveness of contraceptives, and telling them they'll go to Hell if they do it, will fail miserably. If you'd like, I could show you an interesting report on the reliability of your beloved abstinence-only (more like ignorance-only, if you ask me) sex education. In fact, here it is:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2004120110215 ...
I encourage you to educate yourself and get rid of that horrid ignorance that surrounds you. - Evilena, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4Waiting until after marriage to learn that you are sexually incompatible with the person you promised to be monogamous to is irresponsible.
- ieee, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3I was out with a bunch of friends last night, one of whom is a successful psychotherapist. She told me that often ( not always ) past a certain age the "no sex before marriage" women are so severely sexually oppressed that they can't have sex even after they get married. They get a condition where they are so tight they can't open up enough.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+10It's unrealistic. It's not our fault that you can't look at a situation rationally and make logical decisions. You can trot out your idealistic visions of 25-year-old virgins at the altar, but that's simply not how it works. Even back in the idyllic 50's, people tended to marry straight out of high school! Can you guess why they might have been so desperate to enter into the only union which sanctioned sex?
- scamper22, on 09/01/2008, -4/+1And this prevents you from teaching your kids about contraception how?
Oh sorry about that... Palin raises your kids. I understand now...
//sarcasm- Squidwalk, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4scamper22,
You're right, Palin supporting anti-contraception policy doesn't prevent parents from teaching their kids about it at home. The problem with this is that there are a lot of adults who are too immature to speak openly about sex, and there are many who do not wish to teach their kids about contraception.
I believe the purpose schools have for teaching about the use of contraception in sex ed is that the knowledge of how to avoid unwanted children is an important life skill. A good deal of education is dependent upon not dropping out to take care of kids, so neglecting to teach this is roughly equivalent to arguing against the utility of education.
- Squidwalk, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4scamper22,
- dinot, on 09/01/2008, -4/+19AHA! Now you're seeing the GOP tactic. Flood the US with populations of stupid, and they'll be in power forever.
- buuuudy, on 09/01/2008, -8/+29I never thought I would be as disgusted at anyone as I am at Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace...thank you GOP for showing me there's still a world full of stupid just waiting to be discovered.
- tankrunner1123, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2To be fair, I beleve Palin is one of the few right wing women who remembers to change her tampon every now and then. She doesnt come off as bitchy and annoying as the other two.
- babar77, on 09/01/2008, -8/+50Normally I'm not the "family values" voter, but it's Sarah Palin's "family values" that are directly responsible for her daughter's situation. She refused to teach her daughter about contraception, and now Bristol never had a choice about her pregnancy. Plus her hometown will probably shame Bristol for getting pregnant out of wedlock and she is forced to feel shamed while in the national spotlight. Is this what we want a heartbeat away from the presidency? This VP pick is a ***** disaster.
- boxlight, on 09/01/2008, -16/+4> now Bristol never had a choice about her pregnancy
Ah, the liberal mind at work.- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+14"the liberal mind"
Ah, the lazy mind at work. Just blame teh librulz whenever you can't come up with an intelligent comment. - SpinningHead, on 09/01/2008, -1/+11Yes, the liberal mind expects to educate kids about reproduction and contraception so they can make informed decisions and not become moms at 17.
- sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -1/+10Oh yes, the liberal mind... by the way, the McCain campaign came out today and said "Bristol made her own decision to keep the baby." A decision that will be taken away from every woman in this country if McCain is elected.
- HonestAbe, on 09/01/2008, -1/+7I'm glad my worldview isn't as simplistic and one-dimensional as yours.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+14"the liberal mind"
- boxlight, on 09/01/2008, -16/+4> now Bristol never had a choice about her pregnancy
- yaponi, on 09/01/2008, -9/+30omg-please make it stop. this woman is an idiot.
- mark076h, on 09/01/2008, -33/+11The Huffington Spam
- apothekari, on 09/01/2008, -5/+9"Kill the Messenger!!!!!!"
- Rotzooi, on 09/01/2008, -2/+4McCain bot alert. mike17032 will probably also reply.
- boneit, on 09/01/2008, -6/+2You're not far wrong. This political pandering and propaganda is rather sad. Obamabots indeed. The women has barely been in the public eye, and she's already vilified by the great unwashed masses, who are apparently not old enough to vote. Not that I would vote for the old ***** and this stupid bitch dual act.
- bsmang, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1I'm starting to get tired of huffpo only because I'm so tired of all the 'buried huffpo' and 'huffpo spam' comments.
- bluevillage, on 09/01/2008, -6/+37Sarah Palin herself got married after she got pregnant, and now her daughter's doing the same. That should be part of any discussion about this issue.
- pisseddog, on 09/01/2008, -20/+15So Digg hates Palin now, right?
- DesignNerd, on 09/01/2008, -7/+16Anyone with common sense really...
- boxlight, on 09/01/2008, -7/+9Yeah, that's how it works.
It wouldn't matter who McCain picked as VP. Republican == evil around here.
That being said, I think McCain should have trusted his instincts and pick Lieberman. - SaperKain, on 09/01/2008, -3/+8Nah. We would like to have a beer & moose burger with her.
- twertyto, on 09/01/2008, -25/+13Why is this so hard for pro-choicers to get?
A woman is raped and so a child must be killed because of it?? That doesn't make any sense. I don't think any person that was the product of raped would've wished that their mom killed them instead of allowing them to live.- kickisaacout, on 09/01/2008, -5/+10I don't think any person that was the product of rape would want to know they're a product of rape.
- atmenterprises, on 09/01/2008, -2/+4And why are you choosing to make that decision on their behalf? Do you speak for them?
- GorfTron, on 09/01/2008, -3/+7I would be in favor of the abortion as well as sterilization of the rapist. Yes, I propose genocide of his rapist genes.
- Disgod, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2Sadly there is no such thing as a rapist gene that we can just get rid of, or control.
- Kamacurus, on 09/01/2008, -2/+7no a child must not be killed.... IT'S HER CHOICE! why is that so hard for you to get?
- h3llscaper, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6So you would rather live life knowing you were the result of your mom being raped.
Wonderful.- atmenterprises, on 09/01/2008, -6/+2Well maybe some people would rather have been aborted then grow up a Democrat.
- duibhir, on 09/01/2008, -1/+4I'm pro-choice and so I don't agree with Palin on this to begin with. However, if pro-life is her belief and she's following it through to its logical conclusion, it's hard to fault her. This really isn't a story.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -2/+8It's not a child; it's a zygote, or perhaps a fetus, depending on the trimester. Enough of your lying.
- flip2trip, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2Changing the name to soothe your conscience doesn't change the fact that the zygote is a HUMAN zygote, and the fetus is a HUMAN fetus that will grow and develop into a human being, provided someone doesn't kill her first.
- twertyto, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Last I checked a zygote/fetus becomes a baby and nothing else. Regardless of what kind of name you want to give it a zygote/fetus is a developing child. Like toddlers grow up to be teens and teens become adults.
Different names but they're all humans.
- cubedw00t, on 09/01/2008, -7/+1so i take it you're a rape-baby?
***** your logic - leha, on 09/01/2008, -3/+8A clump of cells is not a child. There is no brain to speak of untill 3rd-4th week of pregnancy. Before embryo begins accumulating experience it is just a biological machine with a program written in its DNA. Removing it is not worse then cutting out malignant growth because cancer cells also have different program then the rest of your body and can not accumulate knowledge.
- flip2trip, on 09/01/2008, -2/+2Never saw a cancer cell grow into a baby, have you?
- twertyto, on 09/01/2008, -2/+1That 'clump' of cells is a developing human being. If you destroy it then you have destroyed the person. This is not complicated stuff.
Call it by any name you want, such as malignant growth, but in the end you are ending a life.
- jgzman, on 09/01/2008, -3/+3I have repeated the argument a few times:
I seriously doubt that anyone, (assuming basic levels of sanity) supports killing children. I likewise doubt that anyone opposes the disposal of biological samples. The real trick, here, is to determine at what point a fetus stops being a biological sample and becomes a child.
There is no good place to draw that line. I have heard people say that any fetus still in the womb cannot count as a child, because it cannot survive on it's own. This is an acceptable argument, but logical progression leads to troubling conclusions. For example, a three-day old infant cannot survive on it's own, either. It requires constant attention. Even if you refer only to biological processes, (breathing, metabolism, etc) then many born children still count as biological samples, requiring such things as oxygen tents or other extra care for several days.
Above, the poster suggested 'accumulating experiences' might be a good place to draw that line. However, it is practical impossible to tell where that point is. I myself have little to no memory of anything before the age of three, and very little before the age of five. However, I clearly learned to walk and speak before then. Also, some studies show that children 'hear' things in the womb, and remember them in some way.
Most religous viewpoints aim for conception. I can see their point. At conception, the reaction has started, and if left uninterrupted, will result in a six-foot pine box. However, a distressing number of fertilized eggs are purged from the body of a sexual active woman regularly. No attempt is made to 'save their lives.'
Currently, for me, the best line is cell differentiation. A bundle of identical cells (stem cells) is a biological sample. A differentiated collection counts as a child. I am, of course, not entirely comfortable with this definition, but it is the best one I have found so far.
As a last personal note, I feel that any ban on abortion (which I tentatively support) must have an allowance for medical concerns, but not necessarily rape. (unless action is taken before cell differentiation, of course)- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5Just to clarify: there's a difference between a fetus, whose respiration and nutrition are taken from the mother, and an infant, who merely lacks the ability to, say, feed itself. Skills can be learned; developmental stages cannot be accelerated.
- twertyto, on 09/01/2008, -2/+1"The real trick, here, is to determine at what point a fetus stops being a biological sample and becomes a child."
There is no trick. Once conception occurs it is a developing human life. People have a lot of name for it but ultimately the 'clump' of cells is a developing human being. That's enough for me. - twertyto, on 09/01/2008, -2/+2Second point.
"However, a distressing number of fertilized eggs are purged from the body of a sexual active woman regularly. No attempt is made to 'save their lives.'
In those cases no artificial means are being taken to end the life. Also, it is true that some life dies in the womb just like many lives die naturally outside the womb. I don't think any one has an issue with natural causes of death. Sadly, for some natural death can occur before they can leave the womb. - jgzman, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2Second Point:
If you saw a man drowning in a river, I assume that you would take steps to save him, even though no 'artificial means' are being taken to end his life. It is 100% natural for him to drown there, but you would be wrong if you let him drown.
In fact, in serious cases of flooding, (Iowa, earlier this year) they head out looking, because there exists a strong possibility that there might be a drowning man who needs rescuing. In sufficiently likely circumstances, you go looking for people to save, rather than waiting for them to drift past.
In this case, it is reasonably likely hat any woman having a period is purging a fertilized egg, which from your point of view is a living human. Should effort not be made to save it? - jgzman, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2Kayala: In my sub-point, (mentioning oxygen tents) I refrenced infants that had not yet developed sufficiently to live in what we consider 'normal' environments.
The record for premature births (surviving) seems to be 4.25 months, give or take a bit. At that point, the child needed extensive medical care to survive. It was not a question of 'learned skills,' except on the part of the doctor.
If you wish to use the 'survive' critiria, then the line is rather more twords birth. The usual numbers say that a birth at six months (in USA) has a 50% chance of survival. I'm sure you would not advocate the abandonment of a baby born before six months; I would expect you (and doctors) to take every possible action to save the child. - twertyto, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1@ jgzman
Drowning is not a natural cause of death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_natural_caus ...
- Yage2006, on 09/01/2008, -3/+2I wish your mom had an abortion.
- bsmang, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3Who said anything about killing the child? No no no, just get an abortion. Much less traumatic.
- kickisaacout, on 09/01/2008, -5/+10I don't think any person that was the product of rape would want to know they're a product of rape.
- cadmiumpaint, on 09/01/2008, -9/+74Palin is useless...she can't even run Crysis and she has lower than a 1:1 bittorent ratio.
- kcmo08, on 09/01/2008, -3/+14Best comment of the day.
- boneit, on 09/01/2008, -5/+3Not even parity on torrents? That's outrageous! I thought it was only lefties that didn't share.
- oveedrx, on 09/01/2008, -1/+11you sir win monday
- ryan83189, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2That's comcast throttling torrents, ***** RIAA. It's a trap, but I am glad because she killed two of my friends, ***** her.
- amoirae, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2She also runs on Vagina 0.9 beta 666. It's the overload of toxic estrogen mixed with religion that made her crazy.
- akchrs, on 09/01/2008, -25/+8And Obama wants to kill a baby that is born alive due to a blotched abortion.
- sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6Wow, you couldn't be anymore wrong:
In a recent inerview with Relevant Magazine, Obama said: "The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.
Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.” [Interview with Relevant Magazine, July 1, 2008] - illinoise89, on 09/01/2008, -1/+5This is actually wrong, he voted against that bill because there was something wrong with it.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/80556/
"But BAIPA isn't really about protecting infants; it is anti-abortion rights legislation crafted by the hard right. BAIPA targets the abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction, which anti-choicers have so successfully re-branded as "partial birth abortion." Dilation and extraction accounts for less than one-fifth of one percent of all American abortions, and is used most often to end wanted pregnancies in which expectant parents learn their baby will not be viable outside of the womb. During the operation, the fetus' skull is capsized inside of the woman, after which labor is induced and she delivers the fetus. It is a wrenching process, but one that allows a woman or couple to grieve and bring closure to a pregnancy by holding the intact fetus. It also decreases scarring, bleeding, and pain inside of a woman's uterus and vagina.
The antis want to redefine these fetuses as "born alive" and require that doctors provide "resuscitation." As a state senator, Obama saw BAIPA for what it was: an ideologically-motivated ploy to vilify women and doctors who choose abortion. On the state Senate floor on April 4, 2002, he explained, "This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after." - diggproof, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?i ...
- sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6Wow, you couldn't be anymore wrong:
- Woaz, on 09/01/2008, -10/+5She's being hit harder than Kerry was in 2004; not like that's a bad thing.
- kcmo08, on 09/01/2008, -8/+17What a great VP choice...the former mayor of *****, Alaska...
- ljf02f, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I'm hardly a HuffPo staffer.
News is news!
So much for spewing anti-birth control education.
- ljf02f, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I'm hardly a HuffPo staffer.
- Willtheway, on 09/01/2008, -18/+20Hey Huffingtonpost, stop with the ***** spam, we know your whole staff are diggers just spamming to get more money from your advertisers. I might have more respect if I actually saw unbiased reporting, but I guess that's too much to ask for since you criticize Fox News for doing the same.
- sl9sl9, on 09/01/2008, -4/+3I'm also ***** sick of this ***** being spammed on digg for the past year. huffington post and daily kos really are the Fox News of the left.
What we need is an option to filter out stories based on the URL they link to. Or even better, what about a Firefox extension that does this filtering AND automatically BURIES the stories every time they trigger the filter? Hahaha thats a ***** great idea, if a few hundred people installed that we would never see daily kos & huffington post again!!! Bwahahahaha- Willtheway, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2wow that would like save me so much time in the day. heck i might even learn something from digg without the ariana spam
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -2/+2Huffpo, Kos, NPR, CNN are the feed trough of the juvenile geeky left.
- ljf02f, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1I'm hardly a HuffPo staffer.
News is news!
So much for spewing anti-birth control education.
- sl9sl9, on 09/01/2008, -4/+3I'm also ***** sick of this ***** being spammed on digg for the past year. huffington post and daily kos really are the Fox News of the left.
- Dmilla16, on 09/01/2008, -14/+15so when is digg going to just redirect to the huffington post when we come here? seems like it would save everyone a lot of trouble. This site is now worthless between now and the election because it's all the same.
- nateisablog, on 09/01/2008, -10/+5According to this article, Palin says her daughter has the right to choose...
http://nosesplash.com/blog-news/42-news/131-palin- ...- stanfy86, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2......which doctor to deliver the baby.......misleading -1 4 u :P
- loganro, on 09/01/2008, -16/+10She believes that a child should not die. Since when did that start being a bad thing? It's amazing how the far lefts are trying and trying to find anything to bash Palin about. Instead of talking trash about a VP, take a look at your very own presidential candidate. That asshat has more blood on his hands than anyone.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -4/+9She believes that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy that she does not want. Enough with your lies and manipulation.
- loganro, on 09/01/2008, -4/+0Nine months traded for a kid that could live for a long time and do good things..hmm. sounds like a fair deal to me.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5That kid could also be the next Commie dictator, or construct a new and Earth-destroying weapon that will ultimately end in our destruction as a race. Why is it that you'll only consider that maybe the kid will do something good, and never something bad? It's a risk we take - we never know how our kids are going to turn out, but we do know that they have a better chance of being good people if they're wanted children, raised in a household with the means and the love to properly care for the child. Planned pregnancies ftw!
- tom957, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3There's that whole overpopulation thing, too....
VHEMT FTW - loganro, on 09/01/2008, -3/+0kyala, since when does the mother get to conveniently decide that she does not want the kid when it was, in fact, her fault because she was not safe to begin. Hey, let's refuse a kids life just because I got drunk one night and had a one night stand!
EDIT: I find it hilarious that most people that think abortion is okay, but are HIGHLY against war. People are being killed in the war, so that is wrong. People are being killed by there slutty mothers, but that is alright. I'm against the war btw. Another instance of the extreme left hypocrisy. - kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3Oh, loganro, it makes me sad to see that you're so clueless. Do you really think that all, or even most, abortions are the result of getting drunk and having a one-night stand? She might have taken all the possible precautions and still ended up pregnant - condoms can break or be sabotaged, she might have accidentally taken a "reminder" pill instead of an active pill - and you'd still punish her? How pathetically misogynistic of you.
Here's something else that baffles me, while we're at it - so let's say, just for the sake of argument, that your unfair and misogynistic assertion, that all women who get abortions do so because they're irresponsible and/or stupid, is true. Why do you want those kinds of people reproducing, anyway? If they're not willing to be parents, chances are they won't be good unwilling parents.
Nah, it's not really that confusing to me. You are trying to control women and control our sexuality. You want to punish women who have the audacity to claim their bodies as their own and reject the social standards that tell them to be docile and obedient. Tough luck, kid; you're getting shut down. - loganro, on 09/01/2008, -4/+0kayala, I've just realize that you are a female. Have you had an abortion before and now you are trying to make yourself feel better for it on here? I'm not trying to control women at all, but a kid should have the right to grow up and make their own decisions on how they are going to end up in life.
- somnambulator, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4I don't know much about kayala except what I read on Digg, but I am fairly certain she has made it her lifes work to eviscerate stupid, misogynistic, ignorant, arrogant fools like you.
- kayala, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4It's funny, loganro, that you should be the second little pest to ask me if my support of women's rights comes from some secret, deep shame. You'll be the second little pest to learn that I have not had an abortion, and my support for my rights stems from a love of autonomy. Now run along back to your little cave, won't you?
- Syphon8, on 09/01/2008, -3/+8Foetuses are not children.
- HonestAbe, on 09/01/2008, -0/+6She believes that mothers should be put in prison for wanting to end their pregnancy, even if the mother doesn't believe that a cluster of cells is a human being.
- darwinwins, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2um mccain was a bomber pilot during vietnam and was shot down over hanoi. he's probably killed more people than rest of the field combined.
- loganro, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0Good point. I wonder though, are you one of the people that can't stand it when McCain says that he was a P.O.W? If so, there is one more instance to add to the wall.
- HonestAbe, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2BUT HE WAS A POW
POW
POW
POW
You can't criticize a POW!
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -4/+9She believes that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy that she does not want. Enough with your lies and manipulation.
- howufinna, on 09/01/2008, -22/+13YOU ***** STOP WITH THE PALIN ARTICLES. YOU MADE ME RESORT TO CAPS YOU ASSHOLES.
- scot333, on 09/01/2008, -1/+20IM GUNNA POP SOME CAPS INTO THESE PALIN ARTICLES!
- TheToecutter, on 09/01/2008, -10/+9This woman is a disaster and has no business being anywhere near the Whitehouse.
- ceraphin, on 09/01/2008, -7/+4so she's like super messed up in the head eh
- GrodyChamp, on 09/01/2008, -8/+11I think we all knew her stance on abortion before the huffpo spam. This is just getting stupid.
- SecureXeC, on 09/01/2008, -28/+34Stop.
With.
The.
*****.
Palin.
Articles.
Before.
I.
Find.
Your.
*****.
Parents.
And.
Abort.
Them.
With.
My.
Balls.
*****.- scot333, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1This
response
is
cool
cuz
I
actually
read
it.
you
are
still
reading
arent
you?
cool.
peep
poop
paap
deek
dook
daak
- scot333, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1This
- Sleekery, on 09/01/2008, -17/+18Buried for being Huffington Post.
- Dealjobber, on 09/01/2008, -8/+29If McCain croaks in office, I'm buying stock into coat hangers.
- rda1441, on 09/01/2008, -14/+10You know, if Republicans went after Obama, like they should, like this, the screams of racism from the loony left, like huffington, would be deafening.
A republican woman, and its open season....
The last three days should be a wakeup call to all Republicans....gloves off from now till November.- atmenterprises, on 09/01/2008, -1/+5Some lefties are just sexist, too.
- Dmilla16, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3believe it or not, the rest of the country isn't like this. Digg , read huffington post, is by far the loudest.
- Schumach5, on 09/01/2008, -5/+10That's what pro-life means...Not sure why so many people are surprised.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5"Pro-life" is misleading, and anti-abortion-rights advocates no longer deserve the title. People who are truly pro-life would value the life in progress over the potential life that has not yet begun. People who are truly pro-life would not advocate unjust wars which have resulted in thousands of deaths. People who are truly pro-life would not support killing another person as a method of punishment. People who are truly pro-life would be in favor of proper health care for the people whose lives depend on it. I see none of these qualities in the so-called "pro-lifers" that speak the loudest in this country. They want only to control our sexuality and to punish women who take control of their own sex lives by forcing them to have children that they do not want. Why anyone would trust such manipulative, heartless and dishonest people is beyond me.
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -4/+1When does life begin then? If you're not sure, then you have to side on conception.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2Nonsense, silly misogynist. I am not obligated to do any such thing. Your position is not the default. Further, it is ridiculous to say that life starts at conception, because life was already present before and during conception - the sex cells involved are very much alive. Sorry, you lose again.
- JumpingJack79, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2OK, I understand that you see even a single cell as "life". But why is that life only worth protecting before it was born? What about after it's born? The so called "pro-life" people would deny the newborn baby and its parrents proper health care, unless they can afford it. They would deny the parrents a minimum wage, so that they can support the child. They would deny the child proper education. And ultimately they would send the grown-up child into an unjust war to kill others (including innocent civilians) and to get killed himself.
I can understand your wish to protect life. But fot God's sake, protect it also DURING life, not just before birth! - jaakkoh, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1@ kayla & JumpinJack79:
You're missing the point. Don't you understand that every sperm is sacred & good? Monty Python articulated it so well so long ago: http://snipr.com/everyspermissacred [www_youtube_com] - moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0Someone that was pro-life would also appreciate all forms of life on Earth and not PAY "hunters*" to cruelly murder innocent wolves.
* I would like to note that I am alright with traditional hunting in which the animal is killed humanely and then used for food or some other productive purpose. If you read up and watch the video, this is not traditional hunting and has even been voted against TWICE by the people of Alaska. It is also illegal under a federal law, but a small loophole allows it to continue anyway.
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_f ...
https://secure.defenders.org/site/SPageServer?page ... (the video turns my stomach)
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5"Pro-life" is misleading, and anti-abortion-rights advocates no longer deserve the title. People who are truly pro-life would value the life in progress over the potential life that has not yet begun. People who are truly pro-life would not advocate unjust wars which have resulted in thousands of deaths. People who are truly pro-life would not support killing another person as a method of punishment. People who are truly pro-life would be in favor of proper health care for the people whose lives depend on it. I see none of these qualities in the so-called "pro-lifers" that speak the loudest in this country. They want only to control our sexuality and to punish women who take control of their own sex lives by forcing them to have children that they do not want. Why anyone would trust such manipulative, heartless and dishonest people is beyond me.
- bangalter, on 09/01/2008, -4/+4She just wants grandbabies. What digger can't identify with that?
- Khast, on 09/01/2008, -6/+4Let's talk about family values for a second. Sure aborting a fetus is wrong....but according to your beliefs isn't pre-marital sex wrong too?....but let's not worry about the latter, abortion is what you are more concerned about.
Hell, it seems the whole argument for the Right Wing Rethuglicans. Make an example out of the people who have abortion...but never address the issues which make the "fetus" in the first place.
My overall opinion on abortion....if you didn't want a child..you shouldn't have been ***** around.- atmenterprises, on 09/01/2008, -4/+4Last sentence I totally agree with! At least you learned something about abstinence. Apparently Diggers don't understand that.
- SecureXeC, on 09/01/2008, -1/+4Uh.. I suggest you propose how to stop premarital sex.
Abortion is something mommy and daddy have to consent for before it happens. Sex isn't. Do you honestly ***** suggest Palin know what her kid is doing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? How the ***** is that even possible? It isn't. No parent can have that kind of control over their kid.- Khast, on 09/01/2008, -3/+1Well, we are a Christian nation..so these politicians want us to think. Punishment in the Bible was death for extra/pre marital sex. We could always go and be just like the Muslim, or Islamic nations, they don't seem to have much of a problem with abortion...of course you get caught ***** around, you are put to death.
On second thought.... that would really screw up our freedom that they want us to believe we still have.
On thrid though... it just overall seems like a bad idea to form another strict theocracy in the 21st century....religion is so dated. - SecureXeC, on 09/01/2008, -1/+3I don't think anyone actually WANTS premarital sex to be outlawed. It was a response to Palin being pro-life in the name of God, while ignoring the fact that her daughter spreads her legs before marriage.
- Khast, on 09/01/2008, -3/+1Well, we are a Christian nation..so these politicians want us to think. Punishment in the Bible was death for extra/pre marital sex. We could always go and be just like the Muslim, or Islamic nations, they don't seem to have much of a problem with abortion...of course you get caught ***** around, you are put to death.
- oveedrx, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1but she wanted me inside her
- bangalter, on 09/01/2008, -2/+3ReTHUGlicans... I see what you did there.
- scamper22, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0you know there are shades of grey and some sins are greater than others.
Lying is also a 'wrong'
But murder is far worse than lying.
I'm pretty sure Palin taught her daugher premarital sex was wrong. But what is done is done, now the issue becomes the new baby.
And damn right, you should be more outraged about abortion IF (and it's a big IF) you think life begins at conception. Once you decide that, it is absolutely murder and she has every logical right to be up in arms about murder.
That said, my own belief is that conscious life only beings after around 3 months. So abort away before that. After about 5 months, it's definitely murder and anyone supporting late term abortions might as well be a murderer.
But that's why we're allowed to have our own opinions and we should seek balance to this answer. Give enough time for women to exercise her rights over her body, while at the same time protecting the GREATER right of the child to life (whenever you think the child becomes life)
- eker, on 09/01/2008, -4/+16We need more Palin stories on the front page
- oveedrx, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1no we need a palin topic... www.digg.com/palin
- pintomp3, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1we'll keep her off the front page when she stops trying to intervene in everyone's sex lives.
- member57, on 09/01/2008, -9/+6Holy *****, she must have the demonrats riled up, something 7 "stories" on the first page alone. Dam the rhetoric machines is working overtime!
- sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -1/+3It's amusing that this is the only thing Republicans can come up with to defend this horrible VP choice. "Oh you Dems sure are riled up, are ya scared?!"
Scared? No. Rational-thinking people are just offended that John McCain thinks so little of his country that he'd rather pander to voters by trotting out a wholly unqualified woman and pretending like he's actually doing something to help hurricane victims when he consistently voted against giving any aid to those impacted by Katrina.
- sugarazor, on 09/01/2008, -1/+3It's amusing that this is the only thing Republicans can come up with to defend this horrible VP choice. "Oh you Dems sure are riled up, are ya scared?!"
- hokie15102, on 09/01/2008, -5/+4Here we go again. We have a tragedy going on down in the Gulf and that's all these people can think about is slandering Palin. Unbelievable. And for the user who added this, SLORENZO, I have some advice for you. Why don't you find something better to do than slandering McCain and Palin...I'm sure the Gulf could use a volunteer right now if your really looking to make a difference in this country.
- tomarocco, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2There's no tragedy. It is a common seasonal storm.
- moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0That's a bit of an understatement.
- localzuk, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3It isn't slander if it's true... You may wish to remember that.
And as is so often pointed out - there are many things happening at the same time in the world. If we only paid attention to one event at a time, we'd still be waiting to become farmers rather than hunter gatherers... - hokie15102, on 09/02/2008, -0/+0Then why don't you add the "articles of truth" on Biden? Because I am sure you can find just as much dirt, or "truth", (or more) on him as Palin.
- moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0I'm pretty sure you're free to add any articles you wish to Digg, so go for it.
- moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0Yes, the possible future of our country isn't the least bit important. Why should anyone spend time reading and learning about the opinions and policies of the person they are hoping to elect as the second in command of the free world? I mean, really, it's a job akin to being a manager at taco bell.
- tomarocco, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2There's no tragedy. It is a common seasonal storm.
- oriondr, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Wow, they make it seem like she had a "CHOICE" in the matter....
- hokie15102, on 09/01/2008, -2/+1Here we go again...more ignorance. Its just a "common seasonal storm". Why don't you tell that to the people of the gulf who are scared for their lives and neighborhoods right now?
- bigsteve3OOO, on 09/01/2008, -7/+3I thought you libs were for choice? if she choses NO why the ass ache coming her way? Choice is yes or no right?
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4We are for letting every woman have that choice. The problem with the anti-abortion-rights advocates is that they tend to think that nobody should have that choice. Hence, we don't like them very much.
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -3/+0Right, we don't want you to have the choice to kill a child, at any age. The word choice is just a cover. People don't have the choice to shoot anyone they like, people don't have the choice to rob any bank they want.
What matters is when does life begin. You pick after breathing starts, and I hope you're right, if you're wrong, you are accessory to a murder. - kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3Biogears, don't you have some evolution to deny, somewhere else? I'm tired of your lying and manipulation. Go pester somebody else.
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -3/+0Right, we don't want you to have the choice to kill a child, at any age. The word choice is just a cover. People don't have the choice to shoot anyone they like, people don't have the choice to rob any bank they want.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4We are for letting every woman have that choice. The problem with the anti-abortion-rights advocates is that they tend to think that nobody should have that choice. Hence, we don't like them very much.
- NCSD, on 09/01/2008, -9/+8Oh my God SHUT THE ***** UP. Theres about 50 articles criticizing her and not one on Biden.
She's decent looking, she's got my vote.- MWeather, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4"Theres about 50 articles criticizing her and not one on Biden."
Maybe that's because Biden is more qualified, and less controversial.- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah right.
- xedd, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5"She's decent looking, she's got my vote."
Great political analysis. Shows how serious and deep your thinking is. - localzuk, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3Wow. Is this the depth of political analysis in the USA? Superb.
- moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0We rule!
- MWeather, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4"Theres about 50 articles criticizing her and not one on Biden."
- Richdiet, on 09/01/2008, -1/+6I'm very, very firmly pro-choice, but I think it's more a consistant position for an anti-abortionist to oppose abortion in *all* cases. I mean, to someone who supposedly values life above all else, why should it matter that the life they are protecting resulted from a crime.. even a horrible one?
To put it another way, if you are 'pro-life' but support abortion only in cases where the victim was raped, you are basically saying "the penalty for *choosing* to have sex and accidentally get pregnant is to be forced to have the baby, but hey, if you're 'lucky' enough to get raped, you can abort it".
Again, I'm not defending Palin, I think she's a fascist body-Nazi - but if you are going to blindly value life (and that is what I think most anti-abortionists do), then doesn't it make sense to blindly value it above the comfort and mental and physical health of a rape victim, too?- melkat, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0I have honestly never heard being pro-life as blindly valuing it. But I have to ask, how does one do so? Is it because antiabortionists think all homosapiens should be considered equally valuable? Because that's what it sounds like, and that hurts your argument.
And you argument regarding protecting a life that resulted from a crime... did the "life" do anything wrong there? It's not like she's supporting protecting the rapist by any means.
Palin is for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. Looks like she's got a pretty balanced approach.- Richdiet, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2"Blindly valuing" was harsh, I admit. By that particular comment, I merely meant that I think if you value a collection of several dozen cells as much as a full-term baby, then I think that valuation is extremely broad and ideological, and not really considerate of the reality of the organism's attributes. I'm sure many books could be written to argue both sides of that.
But really, my comment actually technically supports Palin's position over other abortionists' positions (sorry if my vitriol obscured that point) - I think you're right when you argue that the "life" did nothing wrong (at least that's how I read what you wrote). I agree, also, that if she supports abortion only when the woman's life is in danger (one life threatening another) that is the most consistant and 'understandable' pro-life position to me. - moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0Try to imagine being raped, really visualize and attempt to experience it. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're asleep, you wake up with some strange man on top of you, he has a knife or a gun. You're afraid for your life. Should you try to fight back? Should you just lie there and hope he doesn't murder you? Imagine the violation you must feel having your very body breached by another person against your will. Finally the man leaves, and you are left there alone to deal with the trauma, physical and emotional. Consensual sex will most likely never be the same for you.
Now, imagine being reminded of that every second of every hour of every day for nine months as you watch your belly swell, your stomach turn(morning sickness), and your hormones go crazy. People will ask how you got pregnant; "Did you and Bill decide to have kids already? That's great!" You will have to either lie or explain to your friendly acquaintance from work that you were raped. Either way, it's going to be an intensely awkward and painful experience. Who is going to pay for prenatal care? Are you then meant to not only be raped, reminded of it daily, and then be forced to pay out of pocket for the results of it?
Both rape and murder are truly horrible things, and it would take a profound amount of internal strength to give birth to the child and either raise it or give it up for adoption. I'm sure there are a few women who consider the children they had the only good thing to come out of their rape, perhaps even a gift. However, it's inconceivable to force any and all women to go through the experience of pregnancy and birth after she has been raped. More power to her if she decides she can, but that is in no way a choice that should be forced upon her. I imagine if abortion in cases of rape and incest were outlawed you'd see a profound increase in the rate of suicide among the pregnant women who are victims of these crimes.
- Richdiet, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2"Blindly valuing" was harsh, I admit. By that particular comment, I merely meant that I think if you value a collection of several dozen cells as much as a full-term baby, then I think that valuation is extremely broad and ideological, and not really considerate of the reality of the organism's attributes. I'm sure many books could be written to argue both sides of that.
- melkat, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0I have honestly never heard being pro-life as blindly valuing it. But I have to ask, how does one do so? Is it because antiabortionists think all homosapiens should be considered equally valuable? Because that's what it sounds like, and that hurts your argument.
- TinternAbbot, on 09/01/2008, -4/+8Most pro-lifers don't really see a difference between a baby conceived in love and one conceived in rape...it's still a human being to them. Not exactly a bizarre theory.
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0Yes, it's a very consistent idea to believe that it is a human regardless of the circumstances of conception. Much more believable than it can be terminated 10 min before it comes out of the womb. Now that's bizarre.
- moomle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0Please read my 3 paragraph treatise above.
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0Yes, it's a very consistent idea to believe that it is a human regardless of the circumstances of conception. Much more believable than it can be terminated 10 min before it comes out of the womb. Now that's bizarre.
- livinlife4fun, on 09/01/2008, -5/+5This woman is crazy, her backwards views on society are scary.
- kschramm, on 09/01/2008, -0/+10FTA:
Does he (McCain) believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he(McCain) replied, "You've stumped me."- emehrkay, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2This whole situation cannot be real. The republicans must be trying to see what they can get away with in terms of utter foolishness. This dude and this woman could very well be the 1 and 2 most important people in public office in the US. Really?
- Wizened, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Maybe he thought it was a loaded question, since condoms are a contraceptive and REDUCE the risk of getting HIV by about 85% (~50% for other STIs except HPV). Though just about everyone who pushes them calls it Safe Sex or Protected Sex. Mabye, he knows that no matter what he says that some moron is going to jump on it, so maybe he just tries to minimize the leapers so they don't hurt themselves.
- enalios, on 09/01/2008, -7/+5This isn't such a big deal.
As a 19 year-old male, I don't quite know what it's like to have a child who is pregnat. But I can imagine some sort of loving feeling and wanting them to carry through with the pregnancy.
Also, because her child WASN'T raped you can't really take her answer as definitive. This would be a big deal if her daughter was raped, wanted an abortion but she wouldn't allow her to.- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -2/+4As a male, you don't have the right to decide. You're not the one whose back and feet will be in immense pain, whose belly will swell as you carry a watermelon-sized mass of fetus in your abdominal cavity, whose hormones - and therefore thoughts and emotions - will not see balance again for more than a year, so what makes you think that you have any right to tell a woman that she's got to go through that if she doesn't want to?
My advice to you, skippy, is not to sleep with women with whom you don't share a bond of trust, respect and love, and if you must, then use a goddamned condom. They cost a couple cents apiece and they'll save you a lot of trouble in the long run. If you impregnate a woman, you can't tell her what she must do with the baby - but if the two of you love, trust and respect each other, then she's likely to take your opinion into account when she makes her decision.- theopye, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Yes, a male commented on abortion- obviously he's a dumb ass! Come on! He was trying to put himself in the place of a parent in the situation. Did he say it was his decision to make? Nope, he just said he thinks he would probably like his child to carry to term.
The second part is about Palin's answers- read the damn article and get the sand out of your va-jay-jay.
- theopye, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Yes, a male commented on abortion- obviously he's a dumb ass! Come on! He was trying to put himself in the place of a parent in the situation. Did he say it was his decision to make? Nope, he just said he thinks he would probably like his child to carry to term.
- kayala, on 09/01/2008, -2/+4As a male, you don't have the right to decide. You're not the one whose back and feet will be in immense pain, whose belly will swell as you carry a watermelon-sized mass of fetus in your abdominal cavity, whose hormones - and therefore thoughts and emotions - will not see balance again for more than a year, so what makes you think that you have any right to tell a woman that she's got to go through that if she doesn't want to?
- pintomp3, on 09/01/2008, -2/+6yet she is pro-death penalty.
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0You don't see the difference between taking an innocent child's life, and taking the life of a convicted murderer?
- biogears, on 09/01/2008, -1/+0You don't see the difference between taking an innocent child's life, and taking the life of a convicted murderer?
- MWeather, on 09/01/2008, -2/+3What does the method of conception have to do with the value of a life? If it's wrong to kill a fetus whose mother was not raped, then it's wrong to kill one whose mother was raped.
- cgbspender, on 09/01/2008, -4/+2While I do not think we should punish mothers who have an abortion, it should not be supported or encouraged by the government.
If a woman gets raped that is horrible - but why should her baby pay for it with it's life? Choice in that matter means the decision to kill an innocent life because somebody else did something very wrong. And since when do people have the choice to kill others? And if you say "But its my body", well, that would mean you could actually own the baby. Luckily today nobody can own another human being anymore.
The only reason I could see an abortion justified is if the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk. And then it would have to be a decision between the parents (especially the mother) and the doctor.
Abortion is a highly sensitive topic. It brings up the questions of what human life is and under what circumstances damaging (and even killing) someone else for you own well-being is justified. Many very intelligent people have thought about these problems for centuries, if not millennia, without coming to a uniform conclusion. And today some people, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" pretend to have the only ethical solution to that problem? That is impudent and foolhardy.
This topic needs an oped and wide debate with many opinions. Insults and slander help nobody.
And, dear pro-lifers, if you want to fight abortions, why not help the mothers? Many of them are desperate because they feel they are not up to the task of being a mother and fear social repressions.- localzuk, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2Please learn about sentience and when a fetus becomes aware/feels pain. A clump of cells, aka zygote is not a human. It is simply a clump of cells.
- cgbspender, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Why dont you tell me when the fetus becomes human life?
How do you measure it? Time since conception? Number of cells?
Of course 4 cells are not a human. But where to draw the line?
As I said: It is not as easy as many think.
- cgbspender, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1Why dont you tell me when the fetus becomes human life?
- localzuk, on 09/01/2008, -1/+2Please learn about sentience and when a fetus becomes aware/feels pain. A clump of cells, aka zygote is not a human. It is simply a clump of cells.
- bincoder, on 09/01/2008, -1/+1I like her thoughts on energy but this abortion issue is a real annoyance.
A republican is Supposed to be for a small goverment and a society based not on the church of the Pope or Allah or Jim Jones but just on Liberty and Freedom.
Its not the anti-abortion thing as much as the idea of it being regulated by some bunch of weasels in washington.
Its like this... No we dont want you to control our:
Sex lives.
Drug use.
What speed we are graciously allowed to drive.
Whether or not we as individuals can make our own power at home.
Choice to smoke or not to smoke.
Who we wish to worship, if we wish to worship anyone or anything at all.
What we are able to view on the TV or the internet.
Decisions to financially support corporation X,Y, or Z. (fanny mack and freddy gay can pay for their own stupid decisions, the taxpayer is not interested)
Bottom line, what part of Liberty does this government not understand?
and yes, I am including Obama in that opinion.
My fear is that if she wants to regulate sex, what else will she want to regulate if she gets the power to do so. - jparnold, on 09/01/2008, -2/+0I guess we all forget that up to a couple hours ago all you liberal idiots where soooo sure that Trig was actually Bristol's son. You are smearing a woman that has done nothing wrong. Sarah Palin brought a child to the world, even though he was less than perfect, and then is having to deal with a daughter that is now pregnant sooner than perhaps she would have preferred. Now, what is wrong with that?...
Again, Sarah Palin has thrown another major curve to the liberal vulchers by just delivering unexpected news. McCain picket her, unexpected news number 1, she did have a child without argument, unexpected news number 2. I can't wait what she has in store next.
Liberals are lowering Sarah's expectations so low, that by the time we are done with the convention she might be able to walk on water. - jaromdl, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2I think it's important to recognize the differences between pro-life and pro-choice.
Pro-life just seems illogical. To be pro-life would be to criminalize any woman who chooses to have an abortion. We start having problems like women trying to perform abortions on themselves which could possibly end up in not only the fetus's death, but possibly the woman's. How about rape victims? Let's think about this for a second. If you survive through the horror of which is rape, why should the government continue to force that crime on you for 9 months afterwards? I don't feel that is right.
The other option would be to give women the choice by means of being able to do it safely. Instead of criminalizing it and using tax-dollars to support these women in jail, let's look at the real reason why someone would want to abort and fix that problem. Let's support more people to get educations. Let's support a minimum wage that will be able to support a person and their child. Help the woman for god sakes instead of slapping her on the hand for having sex.
I would also like to point out that it is a good thing Palin's daughter is able to have a mother that is willing to support her. It's a good thing her mother didn't kick her out and leave her to deal with it on her own. It's the good thing her baby will be able to be supported instead of having a crack mother who can't afford education or health care. -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 