Say No to Sarah - Caution, Very Graphic Video

Truley

I personally could not do it, but I respect another woman's right to have a choice to do what she feels is best for herself. Not me, not you and certainly not the governments business, it really isn't. Why can't you see that? The government invades our lives daily and you want to let them now decide whether or not you should have have a child??

I don't think pro-life supporters want govt to decide whether or not you have a child. Playing devil's advocate - it's not the govt that gets pregnant, is it? What pro-lifers want is govt to prohibit is the termination of life. As for "not me, not you and not the governments business" well, that could be said about a whole host of things that we DO care about and regulate. Should we not care what goes on behind closed doors in the privacy of someone's home, even if it includes incest? It's not you or me or our child but we do care, right? I'm not looking to get bashed by anyone, but since the subject has come up over and over again on this forum, I can't seem to sort this out in my head. I don't want to see women in back alleys using barbaric methods to terminate a pregnancy but I do understand how the pro-life people feel too.

 I don't know why, but I am a little surprised in this day and age that the right to choose is still so hotly debated. I am old enough to remember when there were no legal abortions. Sadly that did not mean women abstained or successfully practiced birth control. Many women found themselves in very desperate situations due to unwanted pregnancies. Some, like today gave up their babies but many ended up in back rooms where they were often butchered. Others would use instruments such as clothes hangers on themselves or would simply take an over dose or a header off a bridge.

Women made these choices long before abortion was legal, dating back to the early Greeks. I think it is obvious that despite whatever the law is in this regard, women will for their own reasons, continue to terminate pregnancies. So the law has not given women the 'right to choose' - they have always practiced that right. What the law gives women is the right to a safe medical procedure.

EDITED TO ADD: .... unless you are uninsured, under insured, lack immigration status etc.  

denise m

Women made these choices long before abortion was legal, dating back to the early Greeks. I think it is obvious that despite whatever the law is in this regard, women will for their own reasons, continue to terminate pregnancies. So the law has not given women the 'right to choose' - they have always practiced that right. What the law gives women is the right to a safe medical procedure.

You make an excellent point Denise!

According to one article I read on Palin's public statement on abortion first becoming an issue, it was around the time her oldest daughter was 14. She was imagining what decisions she would make based on that. Perhaps she would have not wanted to do that for fear of damaging her child's organs. Perhaps it's based on religious issues.

And people could vote for her because of her stated views. Which doesn't mean that Roe v Wade will be overturned, nor does it set women's rights back, such as the right to vote, hold property, enter into legal contracts, etc.

I am for women's choice but I don't want to pay for people using it as retroactive birth contol. I am for gays having the same rights and responsibilities as all of us. Quite possibly, Palin is against "gay rights," too. So? It doesn't mean that she can set back "gay rights." For those of you keeping score at home, Texas' Sodomy Statute (penal code 21.06) was repealed while Bush was in the White House and our gov is Rick Perry, who is quite a bit like Bush. Because it is a state law decided by state legislatures and circuit court judges.

So, Palin is not going to get Roe v Wade repealed. And I may not agree with all of her views but I do think she is the right person for the job.

And I'm going to remind ya'll again. Given the choice, if she ran, I would vote for Condoleeza Rice. Not because she is black or a woman or to show how non-sexist and non-racist I am (I don't keep score. But if you must know, a very dear friend of mine from about 20 years ago was black and gay, all at the same time.) but because she would be, imo, the right person for the job because of the concerns I have for energy policy, foreign policy, national security, things that are done on a national and international level.

To be fair, other candidates don't have such abilities or strong records of what has been done, except for Hillary Clinton, who agreed that Sadam Hussein certainly had weapons of mass destruction and must be addressed, even with military action. Yes, she originally supported what we are doing over there. So, yes, she could be criticized for it, simply because she acted. At work, Lee and I used to have a saying. If you didn't make a mistake or think of a better way to do something, you haven't worked today.

I'm not going to be able to excuse everything Palin, or even Bush, has said or done. But that doesn't change the fact they have been and will be valuable, anyway. FWIW, I voted for Bush and I'm not happy with everything he's done, but he hasn't done badly, either. And, this cannot be denied, we have not had another terrorist attack on our mainland soil since 2001. Put that in a pipe and smoke it.

And I may be vilified but I value human life more than other animals, when faced with an either/or decision.