Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[rebeccajo 14]

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 codependant on another human being. I think that might even be true in the case of siamese twins if one thinks about it.

Could be. Hence the ethics dilemnas whenever we hear of surgeries for siamese twins.

I just finished reading a book about Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill - you know the time frame - late 1600's to early 1700's. It was kind of amazing to me to read of the number of children families would have - and bury. The various diseases and maladys that infants could succumb to and the number of stillbirths.

I don't believe the female body is a perfect 'baby making' machine. Not naturally. And nature itself is clearly adversely geared towards the weakest of the species. Modern medicine and the progression of mankind have given people a false perception of what nature intended. And perhaps a false impression of just how 'sacred' a fetus in the womb really is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Dismissing and relativising the examples is missing the point - they all illustrate that the concept of murder is entirely subjective, given that our practical definition for it comes from the law and not from religious texts.

[Peikko 1,575]

LOL, the biology of murder. I should tell the lions to stop murdering the antelopes. Naughty lions!

Edited September 16, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But by that logic, even adult lives aren't sacred. Mortality at all age levels was much higher in the past than today, thanks to medicine and technology.

[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 codependant on another human being. I think that might even be true in the case of siamese twins if one thinks about it.

Could be. Hence the ethics dilemnas whenever we hear of surgeries for siamese twins.

I just finished reading a book about Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill - you know the time frame - late 1600's to early 1700's. It was kind of amazing to me to read of the number of children families would have - and bury. The various diseases and maladys that infants could succumb to and the number of stillbirths.

I don't believe the female body is a perfect 'baby making' machine. Not naturally. And nature itself is clearly adversely geared towards the weakest of the species. Modern medicine and the progression of mankind have given people a false perception of what nature intended. And perhaps a false impression of just how 'sacred' a fetus in the womb really is.

Yes, exactly so, but no one suggests that the twin who dies as a result of the surgery is 'murdered' that would be totally outrageous and improper. Very difficult decisions and never taken lightly, as with abortion.

A very thought provoking and interesting post. Thank you.

[rebeccajo 14]

But by that logic, even adult lives aren't sacred. Mortality at all age levels was much higher in the past than today, thanks to medicine and technology.

I'm not talking about logic. I'm talking about the way nature worked before man started fiddling about with it.

Isn't that what shutting off life support is all about?

With today's medicine, almost anybody could be kept alive for any length of time. But are their lives viable? And would they want to keep living?

[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!

But you did smoke their pot!

I never inhaled.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * *

The euthanasia question is interesting too, IMO. Currently there is an initiative to vote in legalized euthanasia in Washington. This brings up a whole other host of questions and dilemmas.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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.

Women, conservative and not, have "accidental" pregnancies every day, in and out of marriage. Condoms break, pills fail. It's another thing to call their babies "unwanted". Conservative women who marry the fathers could have easily be doing so because they want to, which is why they laid with them in the first place. It's pretty medieval to assume that their premarital pregnancies forced them to do something they would not have done anyway, or that their choice limits their life.

One of the things that scares liberals about Sarah Palin is that she is a great example of how marriage and children didn't limit her life. If she was a liberal, she would be hailed. Because she is not, liberals hang all their fears and hostilities toward conservative religious women on her. People are allowed their opinions and their behavior, and they also are to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Conservatives believe it is up to the individual to resolve personal situations. Liberals believe it is up to the state to resolve personal situations. That is the great divide.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Women, conservative and not, have "accidental" pregnancies every day, in and out of marriage. Condoms break, pills fail. It's another thing to call their babies "unwanted". Conservative women who marry the fathers could have easily be doing so because they want to, which is why they laid with them in the first place. It's pretty medieval to assume that their premarital pregnancies forced them to do something they would not have done anyway, or that their choice limits their life.

One of the things that scares liberals about Sarah Palin is that she is a great example of how marriage and children didn't limit her life. If she was a liberal, she would be hailed. Because she is not, liberals hang all their fears and hostilities toward conservative religious women on her. People are allowed their opinions and their behavior, and they also are to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Conservatives believe it is up to the individual to resolve personal situations. Liberals believe it is up to the state to resolve personal situations. That is the great divide.

You really do believe all the anti-liberal rhetoric don't you? It's not all true, we don't think collectively, despite the fact that the term liberal has been successfully fused into 'communists' in the minds of many on the extreme right wing.

Someone who doesn't think like you do is not necessarily liberal and certainly doesn't have a set of boxes that they tick. "Palin, tick the hate box, check". Really, I find this way of difining the world most bizarre and very myopic.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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

I've bee around long enough to remember what it was like prior to Roe. I also spent 20+ years working as a human rights advocate in the Middle East and North Africa where birth control was highly regulated, if allowed at all.

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.

Dismissing and relativising the examples is missing the point - they all illustrate that the concept of murder is entirely subjective, given that our practical definition for it comes from the law and not from religious texts.

I haven't missed the point. I start with the concept that intentially ending a life is murder, knowing that the social construct of the law presents subjective justifications to persecute or mitigate punishment for committing murder. Human beings can rationalize anything. Slavery bring a moral dilemna to mind? We used to allow that too, but it didn't make it less than the immoral subjugation of one human will to another.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You really do believe all the anti-liberal rhetoric don't you? It's not all true, we don't think collectively, despite the fact that the term liberal has been successfully fused into 'communists' in the minds of many on the extreme right wing.

Someone who doesn't think like you do is not necessarily liberal and certainly doesn't have a set of boxes that they tick. "Palin, tick the hate box, check". Really, I find this way of difining the world most bizarre and very myopic.

Let's reword that to make a point:

You really do believe all the anti-religious rhetoric don't you? It's not all true, we don't think collectively, despite the fact that the term religious fundamentalism has been successfully fused into 'oppressive' in the minds of many on the extreme left wing.

Someone who doesn't think like you do is not necessarily religious and certainly doesn't have a set of boxes that they tick. "Palin, tick the love box, check". Really, I find this way of difining the world most bizarre and very myopic.

Do you see how you do the same thing to me that you claim I do to you?

[Peikko 1,575]

Murder is human definition of a certain type of death that is quantifiable only in so far as it is a death that is unlawful. At least try to start from a concept that isn't subjective.

[rebeccajo 14]

One of the things that scares liberals about Sarah Palin is that she is a great example of how marriage and children didn't limit her life.

I consider myself a liberal. And I think if a woman wants to work, marry and have children, more power to her.

But don't try to spoon feed me that bull$hit of it being a great example of how having all these proves that a person didn't have limits on their life. We've all only got 24 hours in a day to expend on whatever we care to expend it on. If you want to work all the time, then your yard isn't going to get mowed and your spouse and kids are gonna go to the awards ceremony without you. Or if you stay home to raise the little darlings, then you aren't likely to achieve fame and fortune.

If you REALLY think you can have both, you are spinning cotton candy in your head. There's a reason that private residential schools, nannies and governesses exist. And it isn't just because parents could afford them. It's because parents made choices about priorities and realized that kids couldn't sustain themselves while mom or dad was off saving the world.

[rocks 494]

I haven't missed the point. I start with the concept that intentially ending a life is murder

so what about miscarriage? that word is closely linked with abortion, is that murder too?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Murder is human definition of a certain type of death that is quantifiable only in so far as it is a death that is unlawful. At least try to start from a concept that isn't subjective.

When you start from the premise that the law allows murder, as you have, ou are starting from a subjective position. If you start from te premise that killing a defenseless being is murder, then you can acknowlesdge that the subjective law can expand or mitigate the outcome of that act.

One of the things that scares liberals about Sarah Palin is that she is a great example of how marriage and children didn't limit her life.

I consider myself a liberal. And I think if a woman wants to work, marry and have children, more power to her.

But don't try to spoon feed me that bull$hit of it being a great example of how having all these proves that a person didn't have limits on their life. We've all only got 24 hours in a day to expend on whatever we care to expend it on. If you want to work all the time, then your yard isn't going to get mowed and your spouse and kids are gonna go to the awards ceremony without you. Or if you stay home to raise the little darlings, then you aren't likely to achieve fame and fortune.

If you REALLY think you can have both, you are spinning cotton candy in your head. There's a reason that private residential schools, nannies and governesses exist. And it isn't just because parents could afford them. It's because parents made choices about priorities and realized that kids couldn't sustain themselves while mom or dad was off saving the world.

I'm not buying that getting pregnant before marriage and marrying limits your life, and that i the BS I was confronting when I answered that.

I had it all. Still do. No cotton candy involved.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Virtual wife