Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

only a true liberal could be up in arms about killing a person but make excuses for abortion.

[rebeccajo 14]

I think there's a boatload of statistics out there about teenage pregnancy and how it affects the lives of young girls. And I'm pretty certain they don't indicate how it helps a young woman get her life successfully off the ground.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. The results you want depend on the stats you use. Most teen pregnancies are caused by older men. The majority of children are born out of wedlock in the US today. This is not the same as marrying during pregnancy and/or staying happily married to the same spouse, as Sarah Palin has done, God bless her.

If you mean, say, a boyfriend a couple of years older, I'll buy your first one. I hope you're not trying to use inflammatory rhetoric by inferring these girls are 'molested'. If for no other reason than using the word 'caused' implies the girl wasn't a willing partner.

You're going to have to prove that second one to me.

And it just occurred to me - even if both of these comments could be proven, how do either of them refute that teenage pregnancy doesn't make it more difficult for a young girl to get her life off the ground?

You know, this is EXACTLY the kind of defense of Palin that I really don't get. Hell, it's common sense that having a child changes your life. It's the first thing we say to our children when we teach them about the birds and the bees. People are holding up Palin's life choices and her daughter's life choices as some sort of golden example of 'walking the walk' insofar as abortion. That's all well and good I suppose. But really, don't try to spin it to American Families and Our Children that getting pregnant at an early age is something to be admired.

Amazing. I knew it wouldn't be long before women started putting their hair up and ordering Sarah Palin glasses. I sure as hell hope we don't start teaching our daughters that teenage pregnancy is groovy.

Edited September 16, 2008 by rebeccajo

[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.

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.

If your starting assumption is that "intentionally ending a life is murder" I'm curious as where you get that definition from given that it is the law, and the law only which defines exclusively what is or what is not "murder". In that respect the term itself has a pretty big emotional weight to it - "killing" in contrast, is the neutral term.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[symbiosis 0]

could it be that they don't agree with Carribou Barbie's ante-diluvian world view? Huh? Well, just maybe.

Edited September 16, 2008 by symbiosis

[panamania79 2]

Apparently, the depth of thought on this thread (not) is stupifying.

No,but you are.

Wah! Wah! Wah!

I have demonstrated that a conservative female with an original thought is a threat to some of the "feminist" guys here. Someone please PM me when some brain cells gather and a worthy thought is directed to the topic.

[Peikko 1,575]

ugh well, semantics.. isn't a baby something that's been born already?

What is the "thing" in the womb as its mother is in labor to give it birth? Is it not a baby then? The problem with refusing to admit that abortion is murder is that you have to accept nonsensical arguments that deem the child a non-entity in order to deny it rights or even humanity.

Wrong, again. The 'thing' in the womb is a foetus. An entity that cannot survive outside the womb. It is not a non-entity and that is not why it has no rights. It has no rights because it can't survive without the co operation of another human being.

Shall we try again with our siamese twins question?

First of all I guess I should make this clear, I am not your usual "conservative" when it comes to abortion. Even though I personally am apposed to it I don't disagree that a first trimester abortion should be the woman's choice. I don't have a problem with contraception or appropriate sex education for children old enough to understand what they are being told. I don't even have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. A second trimester abortion however, should only be for the mothers health and not for family planning. A third trimester abortion should only be done if both would die without it. So there, that is my belief.

So now to my question. If I understand your position correctly you think that abortion is not murder because the fetus isn't viable outside the mother's womb. If it isn't viable then it isn't human and no human rights should be given to it. Have I got you right?

Ok, What about third trimester fetus's? Clearly they are sometimes viable. I myself have a step granddaughter that was 1 lb 2oz at birth. I am not sure of the gestation time but it was very early third trimester. Jessica is a beautiful 4 year old girl now.

Do you think a third trimester abortion is just an abortion or murder?

I am not trying to yank your chain, I only wish to understand your reasoning.

Pretty much. Giving a non viable foetus human rights would be a pretty dodgy thing to do from a legal perspective as six has intimated on this topic before, how would one legislate the rights of an entity that could not survive if the cooperation of the host is withdrawn? It's pretty much a non starter from a legal point of view unless one is prepared to incarcerate all women who might attempt to harm the growing foetus in some way and even then?

Your supplement question is somewhat odd as it pre disposes a position I don't necessarily hold. Being pro choice isn't an automatic licence for women to be feckless. Abortion isn't routinely performed after, what 16 weeks? (sorry, I don't know the exact limits, just that there are limits and for sensible medical reasons). I have no problem with setting limits on what is and isn't acceptable based on medical guidelines and ethics. I doubt anyone can just go into a clinic with a third trimester fetus and demand an abortion, I would imagine such an abortion would be pretty much only performed if the mother's life was at severe risk. If this isn't the case currently, it certainly should be.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, murder is a human act, but why is that? Oh, yes, that would be because humans have designated that human life trumps animal life because? Well, mostly because they can, it suits humans to do so. It would be rather complicated to give other animals rights which is why we don't. What on earth makes you think that the human instinct to kill is any different to that of any other animal? Do no other animals kill when it's not necessary for survival? Hmm, that would be a no. However, only humans define killing as murder, homicide, etc. For the rest of the animal kingdom, killing suffices.

Murder is still a subjective definition, try as you might to imbue it with some mystery 'other' significance. Murder is only murder because of law. If the laws did not exist, it would simply be one guy killing another.

You have to believe that to hold two opposing concepts in your head regarding abortion. I think you know better.

ugh well, semantics.. isn't a baby something that's been born already?

What is the "thing" in the womb as its mother is in labor to give it birth? Is it not a baby then? The problem with refusing to admit that abortion is murder is that you have to accept nonsensical arguments that deem the child a non-entity in order to deny it rights or even humanity.

Wrong, again. The 'thing' in the womb is a foetus. An entity that cannot survive outside the womb. It is not a non-entity and that is not why it has no rights. It has no rights because it can't survive without the co operation of another human being.

Shall we try again with our siamese twins question?

That fetus is destined to become a human being, not a lump of coal. You MUST deny its humanity in order to justify your need to believe that abortion isn't murder. The biology of human reproduction requires a female host to incubate the growing being, but that doesn't change the fact that a fetus is alive and human. That its survival depends upon being in the womb for a particular amount of time is a non-factor in its humanity.

Babies when the are born cannot survive without the cooperation of another human being, too. You can justify killing one and calling it murder, but because you self-servingly deny the humanity of a baby in the womb, you can kill it without murdering it.

I cannot deny the humanity of the fetus, as you do so cavalerly. The callousness of your position makes me rethink my pro-choice stance. I do not want to be anything like you to be pro-choice, and there are too many like you among us. Thank you for opening my eyes.

VW, keep repeating the same mistakes will not magically change them from being mistakes. Murder is a legal definition, killing is the proper term for one life to take away the life of another.

As for the bolded, what happened to logical argument? I am not responsible for your stance on abortion. What you believe is down to you. Either the arguments for it are logical and make sense to you, or they don't. Your perception that I am callous, hence you don't want to associate with 'me and people like me' so you are suddenly pro life is quite the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time.

[GaryC 7]

ugh well, semantics.. isn't a baby something that's been born already?

What is the "thing" in the womb as its mother is in labor to give it birth? Is it not a baby then? The problem with refusing to admit that abortion is murder is that you have to accept nonsensical arguments that deem the child a non-entity in order to deny it rights or even humanity.

Wrong, again. The 'thing' in the womb is a foetus. An entity that cannot survive outside the womb. It is not a non-entity and that is not why it has no rights. It has no rights because it can't survive without the co operation of another human being.

Shall we try again with our siamese twins question?

First of all I guess I should make this clear, I am not your usual "conservative" when it comes to abortion. Even though I personally am apposed to it I don't disagree that a first trimester abortion should be the woman's choice. I don't have a problem with contraception or appropriate sex education for children old enough to understand what they are being told. I don't even have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. A second trimester abortion however, should only be for the mothers health and not for family planning. A third trimester abortion should only be done if both would die without it. So there, that is my belief.

So now to my question. If I understand your position correctly you think that abortion is not murder because the fetus isn't viable outside the mother's womb. If it isn't viable then it isn't human and no human rights should be given to it. Have I got you right?

Ok, What about third trimester fetus's? Clearly they are sometimes viable. I myself have a step granddaughter that was 1 lb 2oz at birth. I am not sure of the gestation time but it was very early third trimester. Jessica is a beautiful 4 year old girl now.

Do you think a third trimester abortion is just an abortion or murder?

I am not trying to yank your chain, I only wish to understand your reasoning.

Pretty much. Giving a non viable foetus human rights would be a pretty dodgy thing to do from a legal perspective as six has intimated on this topic before, how would one legislate the rights of an entity that could not survive if the cooperation of the host is withdrawn? It's pretty much a non starter from a legal point of view unless one is prepared to incarcerate all women who might attempt to harm the growing foetus in some way and even then?

Your supplement question is somewhat odd as it pre disposes a position I don't necessarily hold. Being pro choice isn't an automatic licence for women to be feckless. Abortion isn't routinely performed after, what 16 weeks? (sorry, I don't know the exact limits, just that there are limits and for sensible medical reasons). I have no problem with setting limits on what is and isn't acceptable based on medical guidelines and ethics. I doubt anyone can just go into a clinic with a third trimester fetus and demand an abortion, I would imagine such an abortion would be pretty much only performed if the mother's life was at severe risk. If this isn't the case currently, it certainly should be.

Ok, and again I am not yanking your chain, but third trimester abortions are legal for any reason in some states. I want to know if you think that is murder or just an abortion. The reason I ask this question is because 20 years ago Jessica would have been an "nonviable" fetus. Today she is viable. Who knows but maybe 20 years from now a 3 month fetus may be viable. I was wondering if you would modify your definition to fit the medical advances of the day.

[symbiosis 0]

I just go by that passage in the Bible that says the woman's life is more important than the unborn child's.

[rocks 494]

the woman's life is more important than the unborn child's.

[Jenn! 918]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

[symbiosis 0]

most of them aren't pro-life, just pro-birth

[mrsartis 10]

im not a feminist but i do hate Sarah Palin.. she want to have a dig in the wilds of Alaaska what will happen to the animals????? she haunts too for fun???? MURDERER!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

I agree with this too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think its easy to claim ownership of labels (like liberalism, conservatism and feminism) without much more than a token consideration of what those labels actually mean. In the case of the political labels - that's certainly true given how both liberalism and conservatism (very broad ideological theories) are used as insults in many of the threads on this site, not to mention the continued assumption, for example that "left wing" is synonymous with the Democratic Party, with Liberalism and even Communism. Its just silly. When terms like this are used interchangeably it suggest that the people using them didn't really know what they meant in the first place.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Paul Daniels