Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

There's already enough feminisim fantasy to go around without that.

[rebeccajo 14]

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

Oh Oh Oh!!!

Now SHE'S the one I wanted to be like when I was a little girl!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - in a society where the rules of its construction were written by men.

Convert to Islam, problem solved.

Catholicism will do, too.

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

None that I know of. But that's the core of the problem isn't it.

Trying to win a game that's inherently loaded against you.

[Peikko 1,575]

My religion allows abortion. How does that comport with your assumptions regarding my religiousity? I can be pro-choice, but not believe that abortion would serve my society well. I'm not an abolutist, nor am I in denial about how causing death of a defenseless living thing is murder. A fetus is non-viable outside of the womb, but viable inside the womb. To tearit from the womb in order to terminate the pregnancy is murder, no doubt. I don't know why that is such a tough acknowledgment for pro-choice people to make. Some would grant more rights to an animal than to a fetus.

I've raised a baby. Lots of ladies here have. (Guys too - not to leave them out).

Here's just something I've always wondered whenever the discussion comes up about viability of the fetus.

As I recall (from having raised an infant) a newborn child is pretty much non-viable AFTER birth. I mean - they can't do anything for themselves. Sure they breathe, see, cry, fart, poop. But they can't feed themselves. They can't defend themselves. They can't do anything that Mother Nature (or God or whatever or whomever you believe) gives to us as a means of being 'viable'.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I've always felt there's a reason that all creatures of the earth are able to reproduce with such voracity. Because youngsters (of all species) are NON VIABLE for quite some time - not just while in the womb or pouch or egg, but afterwards also.

Non viable as in it would simply die outside the womb no intervention of any kind could save it. There isn't even a machine that can mimic the womb until very late in pregnancy. Yes, babies are vulnerable but not non viable.

I know I went way around the bend with that one.

It's just my way of saying that I don't think all babies were ever MEANT to survive.

I understand, but legally it's impossible to give an entity rights if its survival are physically dependant (as a matter of biology not feeding etc) on another human being. I think that might even be true in the case of siamese twins if one thinks about it.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Of course it is - you can kill in any number of contexts without it being "murder".

Human beings kill in war.

Human beings execute other human beings for crimes.

Ventilators are turned off in hospitals.

Pigs taser an already disoriented man in an airport and step on his throat and asphyxiate him and call it self defense.

Trying to win a game that's inherently loaded against you.

Or maybe they were MEANT to lose.

In which case they should just shut up and accept it.

[jundp 191]

I don't think abortion should be legal ... I think it would be step back to the Dark Ages to overturn RvW and make abortion illegal again.

So does this mean you'd support a move back to the Dark Ages?

Seeing how you don't think abortion should be legal and believe making it illegal would constitute a reversion back to the Dark Ages.

Well, except my full, unedited sentence in the post is:

I don't think abortion should be legal. However it is legal in this country and though it goes against my personal beliefs, I think it would be step back to the Dark Ages to overturn RvW and make abortion illegal again.

And this is how the media gets its quotes and soundbites!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course it is - you can kill in any number of contexts without it being "murder".

Human beings kill in war.

Human beings execute other human beings for crimes.

Ventilators are turned off in hospitals.

Pigs taser an already disoriented man in an airport and step on his throat and asphyxiate him and call it self defense.

Trying to win a game that's inherently loaded against you.

Or maybe they were MEANT to lose.

In which case they should just shut up and accept it.

Yep. And often - even murder isn't "murder", hence the classifications for "lesser" offences like manslaughter, negligent homicide etc.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And this is how the media gets its quotes and soundbites!

Why do you hate America? Were you or were you not a member of the Cajun Secessionist Movement?

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe I should start a movement to protect the lives of the 'other' siamese twin...

[jundp 191]

And this is how the media gets its quotes and soundbites!

Why do you hate America? Were you or were you not a member of the Cajun Secessionist Movement?

I never went to any meetings!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

There's already enough feminisim fantasy to go around without that.

Yep - its called the OP

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

ummmm, lets see, she didn't do a very good job with her own daughter.

She's done fine with her daughter. Her daughter is loved, accepted and supported; not rejected and scorned. They also realize that it takes two to tango, so the father is not optional. No one is advocating perfection, just better choices. Barack NObama said he didn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby. Are babies punishment to you?

Sarah Palin herself got pregnant and had a shotgun wedding and now her daughter is doing the same. The abstinance doctrine left both mother and daughter with unwanted pregnancies. The loved, accepted, supported stuff that was all over the convention is severly missing the point. The point is that both women were left in a situation that they did not choose to be in (and the men in their lives for that matter). They were both lacking in choices because of a church doctine that has served to keep women down for centuries. It's one thing to make mistakes, but to continue the same behaviour and expect different results is madness.

I'm not sure how you can say they both have "unwanted" pregnancies. That sounds like projection on your part. Not all wanted pregnancies are planned, nor are all unplanned pregnancies unwanted. The choice to spread your legs IS a feminist choice AND a choice to take on a pregnancy since there is no fool-proof way to prevent one and no reason to reward second thoughts by allowing unconditional murder. Murder is not a feminist concept, nor should it be.

I know that they were accidental pregnancies because the women fell pregnant before marriage. They are both conservative christians, and that's not supposed to happen if you are following all the rules. I know that falling pregnant caused weddings to follow swiftly after, because of the 'unwanted' shame that thye would feel if they had the baby out of wedlock. A condom or the pill would have given both these women true choices.

Sure - in a society where the rules of its construction were written by men.

Convert to Islam, problem solved.

Catholicism will do, too.

Which society doesn't have social norms constructed by men?

Nope Catholicism won't do. Abortion is illegal in Ireland. Does that mean that there is no problem, no one has abortions? Nope. The problem is simply swept under the carpet. It means that poor scared young girls travel to the UK, often alone, in secret, to have the abortions there. Would you prefer that young women are forced to travel to back street clinics, Mexico or Canada?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And this is how the media gets its quotes and soundbites!

Why do you hate America? Were you or were you not a member of the Cajun Secessionist Movement?

I never went to any meetings!

But you did smoke their pot!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Are you serious? You are aren't you? Murder is unlawful killing, why is that hard for you to understand? Murder isn't simply a description of death that is distasteful in some way.

Ok, you have mixed the concepts of law and biology. Law is mutable and the laws pertaining to abortion are changing and vary from state to state. Abortion is murder, there is no way around that. Whether it is deemed as a punishable offense is a separate issue.

Murder is a 'social contstruct', death isn't. Which 'rights' do other animals have? I wasn't aware they had any. Last I heard one could kill and eat all the animals one liked, so long as one didn't do so with unusual cruelty. Of course, you had better keep quiet if you shoot something on the endangered species list, but then that's not because the individual animal has any rights. How spurious can your arguments get VW?

Murder isn't a social construct, but the consequences of murder are.

My arguments aren't spurious, but that's rich coming from someone who won't admit abortion is murder and is doing whatever semantic slight of hand serves you to prevent that o so obvious fact.

Of course it is - you can kill in any number of contexts without it being "murder".

Human beings kill in war.

Human beings execute other human beings for crimes.

Ventilators are turned off in hospitals.

War is a matter of kill or be killed. Murder is war is subjective. For example, those against the war in Iraq would see the deaths of civilians as murder, where its supporters would tend to frame them more as collateral damage.

Executions are another matter of the social construct of law. It doesn't change the fact that killing a human being is murder; it merely condones it.

Mercy killings and euthanasia can and have been persecuted as murder.

The killing of a defenseless human being is murder. We use the law to mitigate and justify that, but it is still murder, nonetheless.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ireland is an interesting case as it illustrates the problems that we'd likely see in the event that Roe Vs. Wade is overturned.

There were a couple of cases brought before the Irish courts where the State was trying to deny women the right to travel because it was suspected that they were seeking abortions in Britain (where the practice is legal). They didn't win - but what a silly precedent to make.