Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Isn't it time you applied the 'hedonist' label? That's always the clincher.

Running out of steam for your own position, so you have suggestions for mine?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... because I don't think Roe v Wade will be overthrown anyway.

The polls right now don't look too good, a McCain presidency and a GOP Senate/Congress appear very likely. Old Man McCain could nominate just about anyone he wants.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm willing to risk hurt feelings to admit that.

That's very brave of you.

Thanks, arjit, but I don't even see it as brave, just honest. You must assume the other parties are stupid to refuse to admit abortion is murder, even if you are pro-choice. I'm not interested in discourse with stupid people.

But... how can you be pro-choice (presumably for yourself?) and at the same time not want anyone else to exercise the choice?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not interested in discourse with stupid people.

And yet, you persist in your efforts to educate and inform them.

You are truly brave. Your conduct is commendable.

[Peikko 1,575]

Isn't it time you applied the 'hedonist' label? That's always the clincher.

Running out of steam for your own position, so you have suggestions for mine?

Hardly, but carry on believing your own nonsense. You have defined my definition of acceptable sexual behaviour even though I have not even hinted as to what it might be, other than it's not defined by religion or concepts of sin.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Isn't it time you applied the 'hedonist' label? That's always the clincher.

Running out of steam for your own position, so you have suggestions for mine?

Hardly, but carry on believing your own nonsense. You have defined my definition of acceptable sexual behaviour even though I have not even hinted as to what it might be, other than it's not defined by religion or concepts of sin.

Rumors are that PH's definition of acceptable sexual behavior is to stop when someone says the safe word!

[Peikko 1,575]

Isn't it time you applied the 'hedonist' label? That's always the clincher.

Running out of steam for your own position, so you have suggestions for mine?

Hardly, but carry on believing your own nonsense. You have defined my definition of acceptable sexual behaviour even though I have not even hinted as to what it might be, other than it's not defined by religion or concepts of sin.

Rumors are that PH's definition of acceptable sexual behavior is to stop when someone says the safe word!

let the rumours run and run I say!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Applying the murder label to women who choose to have abortions (for any number of reasons) is inherently dodgy.

No, it's just being honest. If it wasn't livig, killing would be unneccesary. I'm willing to risk hurt feelings to admit that.

Not shooting the messanger. Just wondering how sexual equality is to be achived when men and women are inherently sexually unequal due to biology and physiology. Is the premise a platitude or a legitimate goal?

i don't think it's referring to to the body, just equalities in life?

You have to understand that VW is looking at this from the perspective of one who adheres to a religious view that is at odds with the notion that women can have postive life goals that don't involve reproduction and marriage.

Actually, I'm not. That's another projection and stereotype on your part. You need to work on that.

I was wondering about that bit - how can you equalize biological differences? Wouldn't that imply that one biology is somehow inferior to begin with?

Socially assigned gender roles are not biology.

Ding! Ding ! Ding! Feminism leftist style also assumes women's biology to be inferior and, terefore, in need of regularizing to men, who are the measure of normal.

Well men ARE the measure of normal - given that in our traditionally patriarchal society they are the ones who held and exercised power. But that dominance is entirely social, it doesn't really have much to do with women's biology itself being inferior.

No argument here, but women, even feminists, buy into that paradigm to the extent that women's ability to reproduce is viewed as an impediment to their being wholely fulfilled. Pregnancy is an impediment to equality with men, that makes biology the enemy.

IMO abortion is murder, plain and simple.

That being said, Palin's views on abortion have nothing to do with why I won't vote for a ticket she's a part of. And in the end, the abortion issue doesn't really matter because I don't think Roe v Wade will be overthrown anyway.

A foetus that is not viable outside the womb simply has no legally recognized seperate identity, nor rights.

It may not be a comfortable idea for you/me anyone, but that's the legal position and as 'murder' is defined as the unlawful taking of life, well, it's not.

Law is a social construct that cannot defy the biological fact that in order to relive a woman of a pregnancy, the fetus must be murdered and disposed of. That we allow that as a matter of personal preference and give animals more rights than fetuses is our failing, and our laws cannot recify that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I suddenly have the urge to abort a pregnant cat. I think I have all the equipment I need in my kitchen.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm willing to risk hurt feelings to admit that.

That's very brave of you.

Thanks, arjit, but I don't even see it as brave, just honest. You must assume the other parties are stupid to refuse to admit abortion is murder, even if you are pro-choice. I'm not interested in discourse with stupid people.

But... how can you be pro-choice (presumably for yourself?) and at the same time not want anyone else to exercise the choice?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I didn't say I was pro-choice for me. I couldn't abort a child, but I am willing to allow others to make that choice, however distasteful I believe that to be.

I'm not interested in discourse with stupid people.

And yet, you persist in your efforts to educate and inform them.

You are truly brave. Your conduct is commendable.

Isn't it time you applied the 'hedonist' label? That's always the clincher.

Running out of steam for your own position, so you have suggestions for mine?

Hardly, but carry on believing your own nonsense. You have defined my definition of acceptable sexual behaviour even though I have not even hinted as to what it might be, other than it's not defined by religion or concepts of sin.

I haven't defined your definition, I leave that to you. I have deduced it to be in contrast with mine since you find my definition to be less than acceptable.

[jundp 191]

IMO abortion is murder, plain and simple.

That being said, Palin's views on abortion have nothing to do with why I won't vote for a ticket she's a part of. And in the end, the abortion issue doesn't really matter because I don't think Roe v Wade will be overthrown anyway.

A foetus that is not viable outside the womb simply has no legally recognized seperate identity, nor rights.

It may not be a comfortable idea for you/me anyone, but that's the legal position and as 'murder' is defined as the unlawful taking of life, well, it's not.

I understand that legally it isn't defined as murder. But I believe that life is sacred and thus taking one is murder. But, I'm sure everyone knows I feel this way (and most probably don't care ) and I'm okay being a little fundamentalist when it comes to my position on life.

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.

I fully believe that if we were to revoke abortion as a legal right, then we should end the death penalty in every state as well. But most people think I'm wacko. I'm cool with that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Applying the murder label to women who choose to have abortions (for any number of reasons) is inherently dodgy.

No, it's just being honest. If it wasn't livig, killing would be unneccesary. I'm willing to risk hurt feelings to admit that.

Not shooting the messanger. Just wondering how sexual equality is to be achived when men and women are inherently sexually unequal due to biology and physiology. Is the premise a platitude or a legitimate goal?

i don't think it's referring to to the body, just equalities in life?

You have to understand that VW is looking at this from the perspective of one who adheres to a religious view that is at odds with the notion that women can have postive life goals that don't involve reproduction and marriage.

Actually, I'm not. That's another projection and stereotype on your part. You need to work on that.

I was wondering about that bit - how can you equalize biological differences? Wouldn't that imply that one biology is somehow inferior to begin with?

Socially assigned gender roles are not biology.

Ding! Ding ! Ding! Feminism leftist style also assumes women's biology to be inferior and, terefore, in need of regularizing to men, who are the measure of normal.

Well men ARE the measure of normal - given that in our traditionally patriarchal society they are the ones who held and exercised power. But that dominance is entirely social, it doesn't really have much to do with women's biology itself being inferior.

No argument here, but women, even feminists, buy into that paradigm to the extent that women's ability to reproduce is viewed as an impediment to their being wholely fulfilled. Pregnancy is an impediment to equality with men, that makes biology the enemy.

IMO abortion is murder, plain and simple.

That being said, Palin's views on abortion have nothing to do with why I won't vote for a ticket she's a part of. And in the end, the abortion issue doesn't really matter because I don't think Roe v Wade will be overthrown anyway.

A foetus that is not viable outside the womb simply has no legally recognized seperate identity, nor rights.

It may not be a comfortable idea for you/me anyone, but that's the legal position and as 'murder' is defined as the unlawful taking of life, well, it's not.

Law is a social construct that cannot defy the biological fact that in order to relive a woman of a pregnancy, the fetus must be murdered and disposed of. That we allow that as a matter of personal preference and give animals more rights than fetuses is our failing, and our laws cannot recify that.

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?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

[Peikko 1,575]

IMO abortion is murder, plain and simple.

That being said, Palin's views on abortion have nothing to do with why I won't vote for a ticket she's a part of. And in the end, the abortion issue doesn't really matter because I don't think Roe v Wade will be overthrown anyway.

A foetus that is not viable outside the womb simply has no legally recognized seperate identity, nor rights.

It may not be a comfortable idea for you/me anyone, but that's the legal position and as 'murder' is defined as the unlawful taking of life, well, it's not.

I understand that legally it isn't defined as murder. But I believe that life is sacred and thus taking one is murder. But, I'm sure everyone knows I feel this way (and most probably don't care ) and I'm okay being a little fundamentalist when it comes to my position on life.

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.

I fully believe that if we were to revoke abortion as a legal right, then we should end the death penalty in every state as well. But most people think I'm wacko. I'm cool with that.

I respect your view, completely and I don't think you are wacko, I think you are a person of high principal but I am at odds with you all the same.

[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.