“Lipstick on a pig” and other liberal misogynies
Just got this from NARAL, clearly a sexist dig…
I was surprised and offended when the other day a Wall Street Journal reporter asked me if Sarah Palin was fit for the job of VP because she has 5 kids. This is 2008. I thought degrading questions like that began dying out 40 years ago. The reporter said she was responding to conservative concerns, which made me sad.
But I quickly found it is the supposedly feminist Left that is driving such talk. Consider this comment from Sally Quinn on CBS’s The Early Show yesterday (see YouTube video here)…
It’s interesting that here I am, supposedly part of you know, the – what one would call the liberal elite media. That’s what we’ve been all – the critics of Sarah Palin have been called.
And yet, taking the position that a woman with 5 children, including one with special needs, and a daughter who is a 17-year-old child who is pregnant and about to have a baby, probably has got to rethink her priorities.
It seems to me that there is a tipping point, and I think that she’s crossed the tipping point. I believe that it’s going to be very difficult for her…. I think this is – this is too much.
Interesting that in this case Bristol was a “child,” but were we speaking of parental notification legislation, she would be a “woman.”
As Ann Coulter noted in her column yesterday:
The bien-pensant criticized Palin, saying it’s irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. Liberals’ new talking point: Sarah Palin: Only five abortions away from the presidency….
Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they’re opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain’s vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels….
Speaking of Democrats with newborn children, the media weren’t particularly concerned about John Edwards running for president despite his having a mistress with a newborn child.
I read a lot of sexist slams by liberals today, but the worst may have been this by Froma Harrop on Rasmussen Reports:
Many pro-choice voters were willing to overlook McCain’s generally anti-abortion stance on the belief that he didn’t really care about the issue….
Then who does McCain pick for VP? A 44-year-old who parades her dysfunctional family as a poster-child for conservative values….
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 5 children, but she waited until they were grown before she ran for high political office. Palin returned to the job 3 days after giving birth to a special needs child, all the while her 17-year-old is entertaining a lover.
My, my. I wouldn’t have believed liberals could display such misogyny. What ever happened to “I am woman, hear me roar”?
Of course, this is all about abortion. Were Palin a pro-abort, we’d hear none of this.
It appears fear of Palin and her pro-life position has provoked mass Tourette sexist syndrome.
[HT: for Coulter column, moderator Bethany; for Rasmussen column, Matthew Balan of Media Research Center]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It appears fear of Palin and her pro-life position has provoked mass Tourette sexist syndrome.
Signs of Feminazi Tourette Syndrome (FTS) include loud, unexpected utterences of words and phrases such as:
o home!
o mother’s touch!
o special needs children!
o wife!
o my responsibility!
…and unlike those inflicted by actual Tourette’s (who are respected for dealing with involuntary behaviors) with the Abortion-First FTS victims, the victimization is entirely willful.
Well, I think this part is true:
“Many pro-choice voters were willing to overlook McCain’s generally anti-abortion stance on the belief that he didn’t really care about the issue….”
I think he’ll lose more soccer moms then gain hockey moms by this choice.
Abortion rights have never been about women’s rights. It has alwasy been about power. Here’s my post from April 17, 2007:
“Since abortion makes no sense to any rationally thinking person, there has to be other reasons for pro-aborts’ “death grip” on this so-called “death right” .
It is no secret to me what abortion truly is and why I think it is used as a means to hold political power. I state it again as posted on previous threads as follows:
“You have to realize that pro-deathers are not driven by logic. They are driven by the lust for power, perhaps abortion followers without realizing it, but its leaders and initiators, guilty as hell.
They are no different than the poor man who fantasizes about taking the rich man’s watch without regard to how or why the rich man acquired the watch; while poor materially, they lack no prejudice. They feel totally justified in their position, not because of logic but in some sinister form of perverted self-righteousness not thoroughly arrived at, at having simply arrived. Perhaps this itself feeds the power demon inside them, at just being able to arrive, at joining up: “I’m in the club now and no one will every kick me out, not even me”.
They reject anyone or anything in authority that would tell them how to live including God Himself and it’s generally masked in the facade of women’s rights. Which when you analyze it, is a very parasitical way of thinking. I mean, they kill unborn baby woman too don’t they? How dare they use the issue of abortion to bolster their sense of self-hood. Again, the perverted, twisted and demented logic shows its ugly head from every angle of the looking glass. Ah, but they see in a mirror darkly? No, the light’s off.
So, when they acknowledge the horror of a baby cooking video, or talk about how bad kicking a dead baby in a bag is, or allowing a baby to die in a toilet in an abortion deathatorium despite the pleas of the mother for the baby’s life, they really are acknowledging the horror of abortion since to not do so would be illogical. What they fail to realize is that in doing so, they for a moment remove their masks, and their K-9 fangs show through the sheepskin, scaring even themselves. Does a werewolf know who he is?
So, I ask myself, if we disparage ourselves of the silliness and really take a deep look, what is abortion? Here’s what I, HisMan, think it is:
Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator.
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, to show forth His glory, it negates God as redeemer.
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy.
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive.
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness, decay, death.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, satan’s ultimate power. Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of satan are everywhere to be found in its performance.
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom.
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God.
Yes, Abortion is satan’s feeble attempt at killing God himself, for Abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.”
As so truthfully stated by By Jennifer Roback Morse in her article, even women suffragists are beginning to see the light:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JenniferRobackMorse
/2007/04/16/the_new_underground_womens_movement
“Abortion advocates never admit that women in crisis face an extremely lopsided “choice.” A woman can end her pregnancy at any time. The abortion clinic provides her with an immediate solution to her “problem.” She can walk in pregnant, and walk out not pregnant. Abortion counselors, assuming there are any, have no particular incentive to provide for her longer term needs, or to get to know her and her problems.
By contrast, the decision to carry a child to term has to be renewed on a daily basis. Throughout the pregnancy, the mother may have moments of fear or fatigue or indecision. Her boyfriend or her mother may be working on her to abort. If her conviction wavers, for even a single afternoon, she can get an abortion. Her child will be gone forever.
That is why workers in a crisis pregnancy center must have a whole different level of commitment than those in an abortion clinic. Pro-life counselors know perfectly well the client has a “choice,” other than returning to their center, so they have to make their services appealing. Pro-life counselors get to know the woman, her life, her problems, sometimes even her boyfriend or her mother. They help clients with housing, medical care, jobs, transportation and child care. The Real Alternatives program in Pennsylvania for instance, has a mandate to assist the woman for a year after her baby is born.
The modern feminist movement is a Marxist knock-off, committed to transforming class warfare into gender warfare. Under the guise of equalizing income for men and women, the feminist movement made in-roads into the power structures of America, inroads that would have been impossible any other way. Since babies account for so much of the gender difference in earnings, Girl Marxists need to neutralize the impact of babies: hence their commitment to all abortions, all the time.
The struggle feminism created is not now, nor has it ever been, solely between women and men. The struggle is between women who want their babies, and women who want something else more. The conflict is between women who value marriage, and Marxists who see marriage as another manifestation of class warfare.
Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric of the Feminist Establishment. You’ll never hear this from the Main Stream Media, but pro-life women are the real champions of the most vulnerable women’s interests. The Pro-life Movement is the New Women’s Movement.””
“I was surprised and offended when the other day a Wall Street Journal reporter asked me if Sarah Palin was fit for the job of VP because she has 5 kids.”
You’re right on target, Jill. Keith Olberman said tonight he is unaware of any major media outlets who are accusing Palin of not being fit for V.P. because she has 5 kids. He wants to see a “list of names”. Maybe you could email your column to him?
Let’s see,
Democrat John Kennedy had a toddler daughter and pregnant wife when he ran for president.
Democrat Robert Kennedy had 10 children and a pregnant wife when he ran for president.
Democrat John Edwards had 2 small children and a terminally ill wife when he ran for president
Daughter of Democrat Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton was a preteen when her father ran for president.
Democrat Barack Obama has two young daughters and a wife who worked outside the home.
Anyone recall any “concern” for the children of these male Democrat candidates?
FYI, O’Reilly (FOX) is interviewing Obama shortly.
Hi Jill
I was going to post a comment on one of the other threads about Sally Quinn’s comments because they really angered me. I wrote it then deleted it! Great minds think alike. hehe
You know for 40 years they’ve been telling women that we can have it all – career, kids, family, etc.
Now here we have a woman, beautiful, savvy, intelligent, PROLIFE, with a family and a great job, about to break the political glass ceiling and what do we NOW hear from these crappy ideologues- that maybe she SHOULD go back to the kitchen. It seems the only disqualification is Palin’s PROLIFE credentials.
From Sally Quinn’s Washington Post website:
This is nothing against Palin. From what little we know about her, she seems to be a bright, attractive, impressive person. She certainly has been successful in her 44 years. But is she ready to be president?
She’s gonna be elected PRESIDENT? since when? Over and over again that is all Ms Sally writes about how, Palin is unfit to be leader of the free world!
McCain claims he knew about the pregnancy, and was not at all concerned. Why not? Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.
So I guess Sally’s right. Women just can’t have it all, like they’ve been preachin to us all these years. Certainly not women like Sarah Palin who are prolife, profamily and married.
FYI: apparently the librarians are in an uproar too. Sarah Palin apparently tried to get books banned as Mayor?. Heaven help America now!
Jill, I personally think that having Mrs. Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency is far better than having Senator Biden in the same position. 36 years in the senate is far too long. What has he got to show for it? Big cars, Big House not much more. He is a typical Washington Politician who has done quite well for himself and not much for his country.
I don’t care if Governor Palin has 0 kids, 1 kid, 2 kids, or 10 kids (although some of hers, while cute, have questionable names which call her judgement into question *joking*). My dislike for her is based on her policies.
Hal, you seriously underestimate women if you think we’re all pining to have our young scraped from our wombs by the likes of Alberto Hodari.
Most of us are too smart and self-respecting to fall for the idea that the only way to survive in this world is to eat your young. That’s for guppies. And Democrats.
Jill, I personally think that having Mrs. Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency is far better than having Senator Biden in the same position. 36 years in the senate is far too long. What has he got to show for it? Big cars, Big House not much more. He is a typical Washington Politician who has done quite well for himself and not much for his country.
Posted by: John Chalus at September 4, 2008 7:58 PM
——————–
This too John. What we really need to be afraid of is that someting would happen to John and Sarah.
Yep, you guessed it, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Now that’s enough to make one’s skin crawl.
She needs to be defeated in November. With the lowest Congressional approval rating in history with her at the helm, you never know, even in the fruit and nut capital of the world, San Francisco, 8th District.
Hey Hal:
You like old movies?
Greatest_Movie_Line_Ever11.wmv
Sorry Hal:
I think Bob Hope was a prophet:
I mean in this clip the conversattion is referring to a voodoo priest that brings zombies back to life.
Perfect, how absolutely perfect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k
HisMan,
Hilarious!
FYI: apparently the librarians are in an uproar too. Sarah Palin apparently tried to get books banned as Mayor?. Heaven help America now!
Indeed! Anyone who wants to limit information available to the public sends up huge warning signs to me. I hope she’s rethought that aspect. If your views aren’t up to scrutiny and question, they’re really not worth having, are they? Banning other viewpoints circumvents that process and makes your kids stupider.
If you don’t want your children to read certain books, that’s your right as a parent. It’s also your obligation as a parent to discuss difficult subjects and explain why your views are better. If your views are well thought out, they will prevail.
Nothing simpler, right?
(BTW, I’m the Lucy who wants to thank people for all the kind [albeit sometimes backhanded] nice words from yesterday. It was really nice to see an outpouring of support from a community of which I’m not a part, especially when I was arguing against carrying a child to term being the default 100% best solution.)
I think Palin has really smoked out the women who have had abortions. Just like Hal, they can’t stand anyone who succeeds where they failed as human beings. It’s beyond sour grapes, it’s projection of self-hatred.
I think Palin has really smoked out the women who have had abortions. Just like Hal, they can’t stand anyone who succeeds where they failed as human beings. It’s beyond sour grapes, it’s projection of self-hatred.
LB, your board war against Hal aside. that is one of the most nasty, hateful, misogynistic things I’ve ever read in my life. And I rarely play the m-card because there are usually other reasons possible in someone’s post to hint that they might be human and have some good motives.
Nothing like that evident in this one.
“What has he got to show for it? Big cars, Big House not much more. He is a typical Washington Politician who has done quite well for himself and not much for his country.”
From what I’ve read, Biden, after putting his kids through school has a net worth of only $150,000. For a man his age, that’s not a fortune. Perhaps you were thinking of McCain?
http://www.palinfacts.com/
I will say that, as a vegetarian, I’m happy to vote for Sarah Palin for vice president — I just wouldn’t have her watch my pets if I had any.
WOW, John McCain is giving a great speech!!! What an admirable man!
“From what I’ve read, Biden, after putting his kids through school has a net worth of only $150,000. For a man his age, that’s not a fortune. Perhaps you were thinking of McCain?
Posted by: Hal at September 4, 2008 9:27 PM”
Hal, you really haven’t got a clue do you? You think that because a guy has a net worth of only $150,000 somwehow makes him worthy of service to our country? Well, usig that logic, he should have a net worth of zero.
What is Obama’s net worth? Pretty good I bet after getting a sweeheart real estate deal from a convicted slum lord.
However, Hal, I find it very hard to believe your claim since most of his assets have been probably transferred over to his kids and relatives to avoid taxation and are in blind trusts. Of course for appearance to well, decieve people like you.
But, let’s assume you’re right about his net worth. How old is he? Hasn’t he saved anything? Hasn’t he invested any thing? You want to follow this guy’s example? Does your wife know this?
Not only that but, perhap’s he didn’t save and invest because he knew he’d be milking the government with a over-inflated pension, so, he spent all of his money.
At this time in history, one needs about 1 million dollars to retire. At 6% interest you’d get about $5,000 per month. You think you can retire on that?
And you want this guy to be second in command in an adminstration that will oversee Social Security and a nationl budget?
Look Hal, your post demonstrate your consistently poor judgement. Aborting your first two kids and now being proud of a spendthrift, or liar, or irresponsible steward, (take your pick), are just two examples.
“Nothing makes you happier in your life than to fight for a cause greater than yourself.” – John McCain
Amen.
“Nothing makes you happier in your life than to fight for a cause greater than yourself.” – John McCain
Amen.
Posted by: Janet at September 4, 2008 10:05 PM
———————–
Janet:
Yep, that was kinda like what Jesus said:
“If you try to save your life you will lose it, if you lose your life you’ll will gain it”.
This too:
“No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his friends”.
However, this is how Obama would twist this: “vote for me, and I will insure your ability no only to save yourself by the murder of your own children, I will pay for it”.
I am greatly impressed by both John McCain and Sarah Palin. I cannot wait to vote for them.
LB, I think you hit the nail on the head with your asumption. I cannot count the number of other women (supporters of abortion all) who, after falsly assuming that being pro-life was only palatable to me because my circumstances were surely optimal when my daughter was conceived (they were far from it), attacked me viciously.
Lucy–
Does the shoe fit you?
Why else do folks like those quoted in the article find so much offense at a strong woman who has made different choices. They normally are promoting the whole, you can do it all, thing — but with Sarah they are just beyond catty.
Pro-abort people are offended by successful mothers, especially single mothers. It is sad, I think that instead of dealing with their own issues, they try to hurt others and encourage others to join their unhappy club. Viewing infants as a problem, not a challenging blessing really puts them at odds with normal folks.
Most people see children as a blessing. Pro-aborts see them as a problem. If they have children afterward it must be hard not to think of what might have been.
I find Hal sad and also offensive for what he has done and also for how he pimps for PP by commenting here. I suspect that his job is working this board and at least he should earn his blood money.
Xalisae–
Yes, my experience has shown the pro-abort/post-aborts in my life became former friends when I became a single mom. They really wanted rack and ruin for me and when it didn’t happen they faded away. There was a lot of sorrow in them that I never realized before.
My daughter and I have a happy life, she and I are successful by the standards of most people. My life was enriched by my daughter immeasurably. My remaining pro-abortion friends always want to credit our success to luck and generally try to judge us in monetary terms.
It is a projection of their lack of vision and it’s sad they are stuck there.
“I find Hal sad and also offensive for what he has done and also for how he pimps for PP by commenting here. I suspect that his job is working this board and at least he should earn his blood money.
Posted by: LB at September 4, 2008 10:41 PM”
——————-
LB:
I am self-employed and can post on this site at will. I am motivated by my love for God, and love for children.
In thinking about Hal, and how much time he spends posting, and how he posts I can actually believe your assertion that he does work for Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps Jill needs to ask Hal for total disclosure and if she doesn’t get it well…..
Hal, prove that you don’t work for Planned Parenthood or any other pro-abort entity or organization.
X:
You can be a Sarah Palin too!
Hisman —
I lurk a lot. Sometimes I can post, sometimes I can’t. It seems Hal is always here. First I thought it was just a name a bunch of pro-aborts shared, but it seems like it’s one person.
Seeing as he never misses a post, dispenses talking points and is handy with the cut & paste, I think his work on this site goes beyond the norm. I poke at him all the time and he rarely response to me. Usually he changes the subject — which often seems to be the main strategy of pro-aborts on the board.
Hisman I respect your posts and your defense of life, you are unwavering.
What a duo!!! McCain/Palin
LB:
You lurk mavelus…….
I think Palin has really smoked out the women who have had abortions. Just like Hal, they can’t stand anyone who succeeds where they failed as human beings. It’s beyond sour grapes, it’s projection of self-hatred.
Posted by: LB at September 4, 2008 9:03 PM
…………………………………………………
Smoked out the women who have had abortions? Do you mean like smoking out an intended target? Smoked more weed? Ran faster than? What?
As a woman raised in a sparsely populated and rather remote region of this country, I find Sarah to have done a good job at joining the good ol’ boy club. Bravo I guess.
She got her oldest to join the military in a state desperate for troops. Her religious faith kept her oldest daughter, if not virginal, at least unpregnant until she at least reached her senior year of high school. I’m sure these things are monumental achievements in her neck of the woods. @@
They aren’t in mine.
Im sure you have some amazing achievements though Sally. In your neck of the woods of course.
That was me by the way, of course.
That was me by the way, of course.
Posted by: Oliver at September 5, 2008 12:40 AM
……………………………………….
Hmmmmm. What was that movie with Lily Tomlin and Steve Martin?
I take that as a fine compliment. And that SNL reference wasn’t lost on me either, despite my age. ;)
Sally, sadly, a young person who actally does the right and responsible thing by their children-not killing them-is seen as a high acheiver these days. Go figure. Not to belittle Sarah Palin or her daughter and her new family…Contrary to your (harsh, and utterly out of line) judgement, just because a couple starts their family at a point in their lives earlier than you would under less than optimal circumstances does not instantly doom that family and make their union illegitimate. My husband was 17 when we started dating, and our daughter was born only months after his 19th birthday, but we made out just fine, thanks. It’s vultures like you that convince our young people that their lives are over once they have children and that their only option if they wish to retain any value to their own lives is to kill their own babies…scum like that has stood cheering the spilled blood of thousands daily, honoring such horror as a necessity and the only “right” which can make women whole and valued…when in honesty it is nothing but a pathetic tragedy that only serves to show that women can lower themselves beyond men, to the level of the most primal beasts.
“Smoked out the women who have had abortions? Do you mean like smoking out an intended target? Smoked more weed? Ran faster than? What?
As a woman raised in a sparsely populated and rather remote region of this country, I find Sarah to have done a good job at joining the good ol’ boy club. Bravo I guess.
She got her oldest to join the military in a state desperate for troops. Her religious faith kept her oldest daughter, if not virginal, at least unpregnant until she at least reached her senior year of high school. I’m sure these things are monumental achievements in her neck of the woods. @@
They aren’t in mine.
Posted by: Sally at September 5, 2008 12:20 AM”
Sally,
Bloviating again I see. Ah, the vodka, Prozac and Ambein haven’t worn off yet?
Too bad Hal gets prime time and you get the graveyard shift or should I say vampire shift.
Hey, how much is Planned Parenthood paying these days to be a potted plant for them?
It’s a shame there not getting their money’s worth.
By the way, that first bit of my last post was for you, HM.
Im sure you have some amazing achievements though Sally. In your neck of the woods of course.
Posted by: Lauren at September 5, 2008 12:38 AM
……………………………………………..
You know Lauren/Oliver, my biggest achievements so far are my kids. I attribute that achievement to the attitude that my kids were not some obligation foisted upon me due to having sex. Not some fickle whim of a god created them. I did. By choice. And with that choice came a huge responsibility to help them realize their full potential as actual human beings.
I don’t see Palin doing that with her children. Her vision for the future of her own children seems to be rather unremarkable compared to her own personal ambitions.
Special needs child? Oh well! I gave birth to the kid . Don’t ask me to actually attempt to make it’s life better. I have things to do.
The woman is not a parental role model. If she doesn’t understand the responsibility of bringing children into this word, what does she understand?
Sally,
Bloviating again I see. Ah, the vodka, Prozac and Ambein haven’t worn off yet?
Too bad Hal gets prime time and you get the graveyard shift or should I say vampire shift.
Hey, how much is Planned Parenthood paying these days to be a potted plant for them?
It’s a shame there not getting their money’s worth.
Posted by: HisMan at September 5, 2008 1:01 AM
………………………………………..
Keep that garlic necklace. But could you roast it next time? And a brioche would be nice.
And Im sure your children have never made mistakes.
By the way, I love how you just make up things that Palin thinks or does! Its so refreshing to see a Liberal who knows how to throw random sentences together mixed in with off-subject insults! I have never seen it before!
I wonder how many children Sally chose not to have…
of course her kids made mistakes, Oliver. She covers that under “…help them realize their full potential as actual human beings”. That means she told them that if they were ever in such a sitiuation, they could just pay a small fee and have their kid killed. Isn’t that the obligation of all responsible parents? 9_9
I take that as a fine compliment. And that SNL reference wasn’t lost on me either, despite my age. ;)
Sally, sadly, a young person who actally does the right and responsible thing by their children-not killing them-is seen as a high acheiver these days. Go figure. Not to belittle Sarah Palin or her daughter and her new family…Contrary to your (harsh, and utterly out of line) judgement, just because a couple starts their family at a point in their lives earlier than you would under less than optimal circumstances does not instantly doom that family and make their union illegitimate. My husband was 17 when we started dating, and our daughter was born only months after his 19th birthday, but we made out just fine, thanks. It’s vultures like you that convince our young people that their lives are over once they have children and that their only option if they wish to retain any value to their own lives is to kill their own babies…scum like that has stood cheering the spilled blood of thousands daily, honoring such horror as a necessity and the only “right” which can make women whole and valued…when in honesty it is nothing but a pathetic tragedy that only serves to show that women can lower themselves beyond men, to the level of the most primal beasts.
Posted by: xalisae at September 5, 2008 12:57 AM
…………………………………………………………………
I remember feeling the same way. Holy crap! Does no one understand what I put my body and my life through to give birth to these kids? Shouldn’t I get some kind of pat on the head at the very least? Is that not your emotional need?
Then I realized that I chose to have children and it isn’t exactly anything new under the sun. I did nothing remarkable.
x, if you want to be remarkable, raise your children well. You might have to raise yourself in the process.
Harsh am I? Thank you.
“…I did…”
Posted by: Sally at September 5, 2008 1:23 AM”
Sally,
Probably the saddest declarative two words ever uttered by a woman….Eve tried it too…and tried to blame satan….sorry, no cigar, just a real big lighter.
I won’t continue to pontificate, I’ll just tell you what God thinks about your posts: You are a liar and an antichrist.
1 John 2:18 “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.”
1 John 2:17-19 “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist
And Im sure your children have never made mistakes.
By the way, I love how you just make up things that Palin thinks or does! Its so refreshing to see a Liberal who knows how to throw random sentences together mixed in with off-subject insults! I have never seen it before!
Posted by: Oliver at September 5, 2008 1:32 AM
……………………………………………..
Aren’t you supposed to be a teacher? There are no mistakes, only chances for learning. What do you teach Oliver?
I teach test preperation for Law School, Medical School, Business School, General Grad School, and UnderGrad College.
Although I have taught in a public school setting, under the same rules as public school teachers, I would definitely say that the statement “There are no mistakes, only chances for learning” is a lame one. They are one and the same. Besides, if you are so lenient on “mistakes,” why are you so adamant that Palin is a horrible person?
Oh thats right, her daughter got pregnant at 17. The same thing happened to my wife actually. We were married and had a child when she was 17. Does that make our parents awful parents? Considering I have outlasted several marriages of friends and family already, I would say that it has been successful thus far.
“You know Lauren/Oliver, my biggest achievements so far are my kids…….”
Posted by: Sally at September 5, 2008 1:23 AM
————————-
Sally, uh, I don’t think kids are acievements. I think they are gifts from God that you try to give back to God….in one piece….and not destroyed by your godless view of life.
By the way, I had some trouble finding anything about Obama’s authorship of legislature. He claims that Palin was “lieing” when she said he had never authored anything…but I can so far only find that he has “co-sponsored” bills.
Anyone know what bills he has authored?
I don’t care to be remarkable, Sally. I’m happy being me. If anyone wants to remark about that, then great, but I really don’t care either way. Now, “being me” entails doing what is right, since I feel that I am at my core a good person. Doing what is right includes not killing my kids. I’m just old-fashioned that way, I guess.
I wonder how many children Sally chose not to have…
Posted by: xalisae at September 5, 2008 1:35 AM
……………………………………………….
I’m sure you wonder all kinds of things. Too bad you don’t actually think.
Very funny, Sally, but I thought you said you were old? It can’t be, because that remark was grade school-level, jr. high at best. I guess age doesn’t always bring wisdom.
The tacky personal insult tells me that something I said must’ve struck a chord though. I’m sorry for you.
I teach test preperation for Law School, Medical School, Business School, General Grad School, and UnderGrad College.
Although I have taught in a public school setting, under the same rules as public school teachers, I would definitely say that the statement “There are no mistakes, only chances for learning” is a lame one. They are one and the same. Besides, if you are so lenient on “mistakes,” why are you so adamant that Palin is a horrible person?
Oh thats right, her daughter got pregnant at 17. The same thing happened to my wife actually. We were married and had a child when she was 17. Does that make our parents awful parents? Considering I have outlasted several marriages of friends and family already, I would say that it has been successful thus far.
Posted by: Oliver at September 5, 2008 2:04 AM
………………………………………..
I didn’t say that Sarah was a horrible person. You did and then related yourself to that personal projection.
If you find yourself and Palin in accordance with your vision for your children, I’m sorry for both of you.
Sally, uh, I don’t think kids are acievements. I think they are gifts from God that you try to give back to God….in one piece….and not destroyed by your godless view of life.
Posted by: HisMan at September 5, 2008 2:04 AM
……………………………………………..
Your old lady raised the kids and you sit on your ass and pontificate over the great big contribution you made to their being by ejaculating. In your padded room of course. Isn’t it time for your meds?
Yes Sally, young, happy couples having kids is a real disaster. If you consider dead baby pieces preferable, I feel very badly for yours.
Lucy–
Does the shoe fit you?
Well, no, actually. And I haven’t been catty about Palin either.
When Amanda over at Pandagon talks about pro-lifers hating women, I’ve always thought she’s over the top. But your “smoking out” remark makes me wonder.
Good thing you’re not all exactly alike, the way liberals apparently are. Heh.
Lucy,
I would argue that prolifers don’t hate women, considering that on this blog there are so many prolife females!
Speaking for myself, I don’t hate my sisters; I just hate what they believe they are entitled to do to their offspring.
And when they do it anyways, then I feel sorrow, tremendous sorrow. Not hate.
Hello Jill,
What right do you think you have to tell other women how to live their lives?
Regards,
Matt
Matt,
Your question implies that Jill does not have the right to tell other women how to live their lives, which means that you think you have the right to tell Jill that she does not have the right to tell woman how to lives. Thus you are telling a woman how to live her life, and your question is self-refuting. God love you.
I, for one, am very, very gratified to see the great improvement in morals in many liberals that seems to have been brought about by the nomination of Governor Palin. Why, they are suddenly against pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, or mothers working outside the home.
If this wonderful improvement is an indication of how this woman will affect liberals in America, just think how morality will improve when she is nominated for president in 2012!
Many women who have abortions do so because they think they have NO OTHER choice. Or they are lied to about the development of an unborn child (“its just tissue” “its a blood clot” “its not a baby yet”).
Pro Lifers want to be the support for the women to lean on – I know that my local right to life group has helped women who went with the life AFFIRMING choice: with rent, getting their car fixed, baby items like car seats or cribs, and finding a good doctor for them during their pregnancy. And I do believe this support continued as long as it was possible.
And I’ve read stories of women changing their minds because someone was there **praying** for them.
Crisis pregnancy centers also often have parenting classes and mothers and (hopefully) fathers can earn “Baby bucks” and buy items they’ll need for their baby (items generously donated by other people).
It breaks my heart to see the women going into the abortion mill. They have other ‘choices’ but at abortion mills, only ONE is ever given to them.
There are at least 2 million couples waiting to adopt a baby, even those with special needs, but yet there are over 3000 abortions PER DAY in this country.
I just think it’s funny that the libs say we’re sexually repressed and we should just live and let live (no pun intended.) Yet they are the ones crucifying Bristol for being unmarried and pregnant.
Lucy,
Making an observation about past dealings with post-abortive women/female abortion “rights” activists is not hateful. Noting their hatred for women who have proven that abortion is not essential for women to succeed in life and be considered equal to men is not misogyny.
HisMan,
What a great movie clip!
MK,
Obama wouldn’t find that funny either ;’ ( So sad the loss of humor!
Matt,
If another life was not taken by abortion, I really wouldn’t care what other women did. You see, it’s not so much about telling someone what to do or not to do, it’s more about thinking that if it’s not legal to willfully drown your month old baby, it shouldn’t be legal to poison your pre-birth baby, either.
Telling post-abortive women that “they can’t stand anyone who succeeds where they failed as human beings” isn’t hateful? Is it Christian too?
Women can certainly be woman-haters. I never said pro-lifers in general were, and I certainly don’t believe so. I also have no idea if LB is. But the comment in question was revolting.
I don’t hate Sara Palin. She seems like
a nice person. I don’t mind the fact that she has five kids and hunts, or that she chose to give birth to a Down syndrome baby.
But she has about as much qualifications to be vice president as Mickey Rooney has to be an NBA basketball player.
I don’t want her trying to impose her views about abortion on the rest of the nation and trying to force women to bear children against their will.
I don’t hate Barack Obama. He seems like
a nice person. I don’t mind the fact that he has 2 kids and a wife that works.
But he has about as much qualifications to be president as Mickey Rooney has to be an NBA basketball player.
I don’t want him trying to impose his views about abortion on the rest of the nation and trying to allowing women to kill thier children even if born alive. And I DO resent that he would allow women to kill their children with Down Syndrome, simply because they HAVE Down Sydrome.
It seems to me to be a plausible explanation of the vitriol exhibited towards pro-life women. Keep in mind that we’re trying to explain the hate we’ve already been shown, and is now visible to the mainstream via Palin. Is it Christian? I don’t really care, seeing as how I’m a nonbeliever.
As a mother, I can’t imagine a greater failing as a person than killing your kid. That’s just being truthful.
Q: What are the qualifications to be Vice President?
*
*
A:The person must be a native-born citizen at least 35 years of age and a resident of the united states for at least 14 years.The Vice President is elected for a term of four years.This official’s only constitutional duty (unless he or she succeeds to the presidency or serves temporarily as acting President) is to preside over the Senate.Since the adoption of the 25th Amendment in 1967,the President has had the power to nominate a new Vice President whenever that office becomes vacant,upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of congress,the nominee assumes office.
She sounds qualified to me.
*cheers for mk*
In the Catholic Church we have a lot of disention. Ever since Vatican II there have been a lot of abuses. The people were not properly catechised, but even worse, neither were seminarians.
While our first response must be prayer, there is also the knowledge that as these priests die off, so will their heretical ideas.
It strikes me, after reading Gloria Steinem yesterday, that the original “feminists” of the 60s and 70s are growing older also. It will be interesting to see where we go once they’re gone.
Sad to be sitting around waiting for people to die, but there you have it.
”
I don’t want her trying to impose her views about abortion on the rest of the nation and trying to force women to bear children against their will.”
Robert, you have to keep in mind that the whole POINT of government is to impose its views on us. They are there to legislate morality. We should also get past the “force women to bear children against their will” speak, and say what it really is- not allow women to kill their unborn offspring.
LB @ 9:03PM I think Palin has really smoked out the women who have had abortions. Just like Hal, they can’t stand anyone who succeeds where they failed as human beings. It’s beyond sour grapes, it’s projection of self-hatred.
LB , Many post abortive women (and men) are indeed clinging to the idea that abortion is okay, but the reasons behind it are complex and many. You are right, it can be very painful to witness women like Sarah Palin and her young daughter, who show the strength of character and courage to do what is right even when it is difficult. It does, in fact, shine a glaring light on our moral shortcomings and points directly to the weaknesses of our character. It does not however, make us less than human. In fact, it reminds us, very clearly, of our place in the created order, and that we are indeed human, fallen and in need of God’s grace. Some, in the midst of their pain, will adamantly reject this and dig into their position. They need your prayers and support, not your ridicule. I can guarantee you that no heart will be changed by scathing accusations. Compassion and a willingness to at least try and understand, not what what they did, but perhaps why did it, would go a long way to helping women come out of denial and begin healing.
Also, try to remember that this blog reaches thousands of people who never post here. Perhaps they are in recovery or on the verge of admitting they need recovery, They have probably suffered years of self loathing and as a result, many have abused alcohol, drugs and sex – all of which bring about their own sets of problems. You reminding them, very unkindly by the way, of their shortcomings, can be very damaging to their recovery efforts. I admire your passion, but it would be helpful if you would articulate it in a helpful, rather than harmful, manner.
A post abortive woman who recognizes the great error of her ways is a wonderful asset in the fight against abortion. Please don’t turn them away with cruel words.
Lucy,
I’m new here too. I am post abortive, but am now, after a long, long recovery, very pro life. I too have been on the receiving end of some scathing comments, but for the most part it is a friendly, though sometimes quite lively, conversation.
Again, I’m very sorry for what you went through. I think you have much to offer here. Please stick around.
Even if Palin’s candidacy is ultimately unsuccessful (and I pray that it is not), she has still accomplished a great service. No other force on Earth could rally feminists to a defense of motherhood, stay-at-home moms, and childrearing.
Go, Barracuda!
I think a lot of people don’t understand the differnce between “forcing” our views on the nation, and protecting something.
We don’t want to force women to have children. We want to PROTECT unborn children.
We don’t want to forbid homosexuals from having relationships…we want to PROTECT the sanctity of marriage.
We don’t want all children to be raised with our morals…we want to PROTECT our children from being fed harmful lifestyle choices that are contrary to ours.
We really aren’t out to control the world. Just to protect the world from those who want to harm certain citizens…whether by stifling their right to certain beiefs, or killing them in the womb.
It’s about protection, not force.
DeeL,
And a WELCOME addition you are. You echo my own vision of this blog.
Loving each other into right thinking.
One of my (many) mottos is “I hate abortion. I do NOT hate people that are pro choice, or have had an abortion”.
Separating the “person” from the “idea(l)” is the key to winning this war. (Not to mention making lots of new friends…on both sides of the aisle!)
Doyle @ 7:23,
I, for one, am very, very gratified to see the great improvement in morals in many liberals that seems to have been brought about by the nomination of Governor Palin. Why, they are suddenly against pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, or mothers working outside the home.
If this wonderful improvement is an indication of how this woman will affect liberals in America, just think how morality will improve when she is nominated for president in 2012!
Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing?
I came across this short sermon –
With God All Things Are Possible
Posted By Monsignor Dennis Clark, Ph.D. On May 26, 2008 @ 12:00 am In Homily of the Day
1 Pt 1:3-9 / Mk 10:17-27
There
DeeL,
I think you should take everything that was said collectively. The message as a whole is not nearly as scathing as it is being made out to be. Keep in mind that everything said is in light of how people were and are treating pro-life women who were just trying to be a positive voice against abortion, not other women, and were attacked spitefully. This is like punishing someone for defending themself with a balsa wood toothpick after being beaten with an oak club.
Janet,
Yes indeed, that would be a WONDERFUL thing! I really wish I could vote for the Palin/McCain ticket THIS year, but I guess I’ll have to wait until 2012.
And I haven’t been called a misogynist all day! :D
Oh, Jill, the problem is not that Sarah Palin has five kids; the problem is that she doesn’t seem that interested in raising them.
You know, when Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant, conservatives like your hero Bill O’Reilly said “the blame falls primarily on the parents,” who obviously have no control over their home and are “incredible pinheads.” Conservatives have long pinned unwed, teen pregnancy on the permissive, liberal culture and irresponsible parents with no values.
But now that Bristol is pregnant, suddenly it’s a “personal matter” that could happen to anyone? Now that it’s happening to the Republican VP nominee’s daughter, everyone should just butt out and respect their privacy? NOW it’s not supposed to reflect poorly on the girl’s parents?
How convenient. And disgustingly hypocritical.
Doyle,
Why can’t you vote this year, if you don’t mind my asking?
Oh, Jill, the problem is not that Sarah Palin has five kids; the problem is that she doesn’t seem that interested in raising them.
I’m sure all those working moms are going to LOVE that attitude Reality. Did ya hear that working moms? Liberals think you need to STAY in the kitchen and raise the kiddies, because that’s right where you belong.
Lol, that Alanis Morrisette song “Ironic” keeps playing in my head lately..
I think that when McCain announced Palin as his running-mate, it opened a vortex to Bizzaro World.
Speaking of misogynies, I wonder how long it will be before McCain calls Palin the “C-Word”.
RE: Working moms. Most working moms and dads don’t move 4000 miles away from their kids. That is unless they get called to serve in a dumb war like Iraq or Afganistan
Wrong, Jill. “Lipstick on a pig” refers to the bad ideas dressed up in pretty packaging. It’s not a reference to Palin. Palin herself, however referred to HERSELF as a hockey mom and said the only difference between hockey moms and pit bulls was “lipstick”. So, in the process, Palin insulted hockey moms. Where’s your outrage, Jill?
Last time I checked, Yo La…Sarah Palin’s kids have been in the same room with her all the time lately. And what about Obama Yo La? Isn’t he a BAD DAD for leaving his little girls at such an important time with all his “dads should take more responsibility” BS? Thought so.
Newsflash people: Being a working mom is ONLY okay if you’re a Democrat, if you’re a Republican, you are nothing but a NEGLECTFUL parent.
Verrrrry interesting.
Reality 9:44am
Does Obama not seem interested in raising his kids? What about Mrs.Obama’s pursuit of a career outside her home? Is she not interested in raising her daughters?
Did John Edwards not seem interested in raising his young children or showing any consideration to his terminally ill wife when he ran for president? I bet romping with a mistress also took away from the family time and child raising you seem to hold so dear.
Have you been just as “concerned” about these situations?
Your sexism and double standard is mind boggling. You don’t have any room to accuse anyone of hypocrisy.
I have not always agreed with Bill O’Reilly. When he held parents responsible for the kidnapping and murder of their daughter by their predatory neighbor I wrote him an e-mail expressing my outrage. I vehemently disagree with his tendency to blame parents for everything.
Do you feel Joe Biden’s daughter’s arrest for disorderly conduct is a private family matter? How about his son and brother’s indictment for swindling millions from investors and employers?
Maybe you should express some “concern” over Biden’s ability to pursue a political career and parent.
Conservatives don’t understand the meaning
of the statement that you can’t legislate
morality. This does NOT mean that the
government should allow murder, rape, child abuse, etc. It means that a government can make laws against something, but these won’t stop people from doing it.
You can make abortion illegal, but this will never stop women from seeking and obtaining them.
Long ago, some self-righteous people thought they were doing the moral thing by wheedling the government into making alcohol illegal. Did this stop people from drinking? Of course not. And organized crime had a field day. Most of the founding father enjoyed imbibing. What would they have thought about prohibition?
It’s the same with abortion. Anti-choice people delude themselves into thinking that if the government outlaws abortion we will be”protecting” the unborn. What a joke! Protecting them from what? Will we be protecting them from poverty,malnutrition,inadequate education, physical and sexual abuse and neglect? Come on now.
The problem with Palin is the two-income family … is Todd going to take off work to stay home with the kids? If not, is Sarah? The question (answered by the Obamas, not by the Palins) is this – where are your priorities? And the question for the Christian right is this – why did we get so upset about Murphy Brown in 1992, but now we’re cheering for Sarah Palin in 2008? It’s apparently hypocritical.
Robert Berger,
The state legislates and imposes morality all the time. That’s why we have legislatures, law enforcement agencies, courts, prisons, and probation officers.
We have organizations of citizens such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and anti-violence organizations, who are in effect trying to impose their morality.
No law stops anyone determined to commit an illegal act. If I want someone killed badly enough I can just walk into some disreputable establishment downtown and find someone who will do it for me.
Come to think of it why don’t we just make solicitation for murder legal? No law will stop me or anyone who is determined, and why should I have to risk my safety by dealing with some dubious characters and maybe entering some dangerous neighborhoods? Why shouldn’t I be able to safely and easily solicit a killer? What gives the state the right to impose its morality on me?
“Protecting them from what? Will we be protecting them from poverty,malnutrition,inadequate education, physical and sexual abuse and neglect?”
From being killed before they have a chance to be poor, malnourished, inadequtley educated, and physically and sexually abused and neglected. So these are good reasons to kill someone? If YOU think that those things will happen to them? We don’t kill people because they’ll lead poor lives.
Oh, Jill, the problem is not that Sarah Palin has five kids; the problem is that she doesn’t seem that interested in raising them.
Posted by: reality at September 5, 2008 9:44 AM
Reality,
I dare you to come to my neighborhood and make that statment to every working mother on my street. (which happens to be ALL of my neighbors.)
I play on a women’s hockey league and again every woman on my team with children happen to have faboulous careers. I play with women who are lawyers, teachers and doctors. I dare you to come on the ice and tell them they aren’t interestested in raising their children.
Mary,
Does Obama not seem interested in raising his kids?
His kids are not having problems, so it seems he has done a good job raising them so far.
Did John Edwards not seem interested
I’ve never voted for John Edwards, so who cares?
Your sexism and double standard is mind boggling. You don’t have any room to accuse anyone of hypocrisy.
Ha! Oh, but I do. Family values conservatives who support Sarah Palin are complete hypocrites.
Do you feel Joe Biden’s daughter’s arrest for disorderly conduct is a private family matter?
His daughter is a grown woman, and if that’s the only bad thing you can dig up about her in all her 27 years of existence, I can’t see how it would be a problem for her father. Who cares?
(Don’t many of your anti-abortion heroes have numerous disorderly conduct arrests on their records?)
How about his son and brother’s indictment for swindling millions from investors and employers?
Indictment? I think you mean lawsuit. Again, so what? Anyone can file a lawsuit against someone.
Joe Biden’s kids are all grown up, working as lawyers and social workers and serving in our military. He’s raised them already and done a pretty good job of it. He’s not parenting them anymore.
benintn:
The problem with Palin is the two-income family … is Todd going to take off work to stay home with the kids?
The First Dude of Alaska is on a leave of absence to do that very thing. The Palins have already asked & answered your question.
benintn further wrote:
And the question for the Christian right is this – why did we get so upset about Murphy Brown in 1992, but now we’re cheering for Sarah Palin in 2008? It’s apparently hypocritical.
Well, the fictional Murphy Brown chose to enter motherhood as a single working mom. She had no husband to support her, as Todd Palin supports Sarah. So that’s a big difference right there.
…
I’m sorry, but you’re not going to progress to the next round of the show. But hey, thanks for playing! And we have a lovely parting gift for you: a set of Ginsu knives and a version of our home game! :)
“Newsflash people: Being a working mom is ONLY okay if you’re a Democrat, if you’re a Republican, you are nothing but a NEGLECTFUL parent.”
Amen Elizabeth!
benintn,
I understand Todd Palin is taking time off to stay with his family, just as Mrs.Obama is taking time off to stay with her family.
Were you concerned if John Edwards could be president, be an attentive father, and function as a single parent were his wife’s illness to debilitate her? If there was any such “concern” I never heard it.
It wasn’t the Christian Right that got upset about Murphy Brown, it was the liberal lefties that went beserk. Dan Quayle only suggested that fatherlessness should not be promoted, he did not condemn single mothers. Being the poverty and welfare dependency that results from men walking away from their responsiblities this is a valid point. Very few single mothers enjoy the life of the character Murphy Brown or celebrities who are single mothers.
Also, the father of Bristol’s baby seems to be in the picture. Who’s to say this couple will not make a successful go of this situation?
Yeah, Jill that Froma Harrop piece was pure crap.
I mean, she literally callede Bristol “stupid” and that the Palin’s belonged on Springer. Also, it seems that the 40% of women who get pregnant before age 20 all come from mars. Because, you know, in liberal land that NEVER happens. *roll eyes*
ditto to what Jasper said !
Reality,
SO FAR, his children are not having problems. I have no doubt they are being well raised but problems can occur in the worst, and best, of homes.
I don’t think you’re voting for Palin either, so why should she matter to you any more than Edwards?
And lefty liberals who criticize Palin but turn a blind eye to Edwards as well as other male politicians are no less hypocrites.
Whether or not Biden’s daughter is grown is not the point. By the way, what about his son. Some pretty serious charges there.
No I do not mean lawsuit. I mean indictment. As of Sept.2 Biden’s son and brother have been indicted for fraud.
Both these situations with Biden’s children must prove that a male politician cannot be both a parent and politician and that Biden failed at both. Certainly you have some very serious concerns about the Obama children.
What are all the bad things you can dig up on Palin’s daughter and other children in all their years of existence?
Sure his kids are grown, but obviously he didn’t do such a stellar job parenting two of them, at least not according to your reasoning.
So, fair is fair, you must certainly have as much “concern” for the children of male politicians that you do the children of Republican females.
benintn 9:53am
Lighten up! I think its funny. All it means is the hockey/soccer mom is darned tough.
Mary 10:29 According to John Hagee, Mc Cain’s spiritual advisor, a stay-at home dad is a “bum” an “infidel” and “going to hell”, so Todd Palin had better watch out. Duelling wingnuts!
LTL —
Hagee is not McCain’s “spiritual advisor”. You keep trotting that out and it is simply not true.
Don’t you have access to anything but old Talking Points memo’s from the DNC? Ask PP to get you a newspaper sub, or something.
LTL,
LB is right. McCain dropped him and was never a member of his church.
I had never heard of Hagee until he was mentioned on this blog. I have no clue who the man is and couldn’t care less what he thinks about anything.
“Your old lady raised the kids and you sit on your ass and pontificate over the great big contribution you made to their being by ejaculating. In your padded room of course. Isn’t it time for your meds?
Posted by: Sally at September 5, 2008 2:38 AM”
——————
I now realize that you are not only the most intelligent woman on the face of the planet, you can see through cyberspace.
I could bury you on my kid’s achievements vs. your kid’s achievemnet any day, however, I really don’t want to embarrass you or your kids and MK would yell at me. Plus, it was a united effort not just my lovely wife’s effort at raising a combat pilot, a youth minister, an engineer, a soon to be teacher, and a someday world evangelist against abortion.
But I will say this, if each of my sons and my daughter were failures at their chosen careers/life paths/relationships/outward appearance/image, etc. but still knew Jesus Christ, they would be monumental successes.
You see, if your “achievemnts” ever passed on before you, God forbid, you would be destroyed and devastated and without hope realizing that you’d never, ever see them again. If one of my kids passed on, God forbid, while it would be extremely difficult, I know I’d see them again in Heaven.
And please Sully, don’t ever refer to my wife again as “my old lady”. Actually, she’s younger than me, extremely intelligent, loves God, loves me, loves our kids, doesn’t view them as achievements, and yes she’s beautiful, slender, sexy, blond, with a perfect complexion and beautiful hair, etc., etc., etc. and I would give my life for her. Actually Sully, she’s a lot like Sarah Palin.
And I would describe her as HisWoman, not my woman but Christ’s woman. You see, we’re on the same page regarding that.
Proverbs 31: “10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.”
Go Ginny, go Sarah, go Jill, go MK, go Bethany, go X, go Carla, go Lyssie, go JLM, go Liz, go Patricia, go Mary, go Janet, go Sandy, go Valerie, go Laura, you can do it!
Yeah, LB 11:05 Mc Cain dropped Hagee like a bad habit when he became a little too crazy and embarrasing. McCain despises the far right religious nutballs, as documented is a recent (and hilarious) article by Mike Taibbi in Rolling Stone (I bought my own subscription), but “Maverick” Mc Cain has to kowtow to them (like putting Palin on the ticket).
Palin is a former member of the Assembly of God, who advocate “talking in tongues” and that “the end is near”. Palin thinks God directs the war against the infidels in Iraq and decides whether pipelines are built. (WSJ 9/4/08) Will Mc Cain will dump her like he dumped Hagee?
McCain is embracing the people he denounced as “agents of intolerance” in 2000. He is going to get VERY cranky as this plays out, and I will be enjoying every minute. Mc Cain has sown the nutball seed and must reap the nutball whirlwind.
You know Sully,
You are more dangerous to women than any man could ever be.
Because while your purpose in life is to “train up a child in the way he should go, and in the end he would not depart from it” you ignore that purpose and see life in only the here and now. Ou reject Jesus Christ and that makes you very dangerous, physically, emotionally and spiritually.
There are some woman that I really, really admire. Jill Stanek, Joyce Meyers, Lisa Bevere, Sarah Palion, Elizabeht Dole and a whole host of other woman. These women have overcome extreme difficulty and have found inside of themselves the chanmptions they were created to be, not through a parent or another person, but in the person of Jesus Christ.
Sounds to me Janet that you put a lot of effort into your kids and that’s fine. But, if they do not know Christ, they are extreme failures of the utmost kind and you in part, ar responsible for that.
Correction to above post:
You know Sully,
You are more dangerous to women than any man could ever be.
Because while your purpose in life is to “train up a child in the way he should go, and in the end he would not depart from it” you ignore that purpose and see life in only the here and now. You reject Jesus Christ and that makes you very dangerous, physically, emotionally and spiritually.
There are some woman that I really, really admire. Jill Stanek, Joyce Meyers, Lisa Bevere, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole and a whole host of other woman. These women have overcome extreme difficulty and have found inside of themselves the chanmptions they were created to be, not through a parent or another person, but in the person of Jesus Christ.
Sounds to me Sully that you put a lot of effort into your kids and that’s fine. But, if they do not know Christ, they are extreme failures of the utmost kind and you in part, ar responsible for that.
The feminist double speak is totally mind blowing today. Some of the same people who have falsely accused me of misogyny are now making statements about Governor Palin that actually are misogynistic, and keeping a straight face all the while.
Amazing what fear will do. Be very afraid of this woman, she is honest!
“Protecting them from what? Will we be protecting them from poverty,malnutrition,inadequate education, physical and sexual abuse and neglect?”.
And you wonder why we think the left is bitter…
See, many of us hear think of all the butterflies they can catch, their first bowl of ice cream, Christmas morning, running through sprinklers and flintstones vitamins.
You immediately jump to the conclusion that they’ll be walled up in a room and fed red ants and kerosene.
Why is it that OUR first reaction is improve schools, feed the hungry, rock the down syndrome baby, adopt the neglected child…
And YOUR first reaction is “Kill “Em”.
A man can’t see the stars if he doesn’t walk in darkness.
Not everything that is challenging is hopeless.
No wonder Obama’s promises of hope and change are so enticing. If I lived in your dismal world I’d like a little change too. And a chance to experience “hope” for the first time.
Is there anything I can do to brighten your world?
It means that a government can make laws against something, but these won’t stop people from doing it.
How many years of staring off into space did it take you to come up with that brilliant insight?
No kidding. So what? We just let everyone do their own thing? Repeal the rape laws! They don’t work!
Hand out heroin to kindergartners…they’re gonna do it anyway!
Jump off the bridge before someone pushes you!
Sad, you guys are really sad. Look out the window. It’s a beautiful world out there. Really. It’s not as dreadful as you think…
What a bunch of Negative Nancy’s and Gloomy Gus’s!
Sheesh!
Read your post and it made me think about Obama’s over 20 membership in Rev. Wright’s Church. Here’s a couple of video highlights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo
Obama even used Wright’s words for the title to his book, but when the videos can out, Barrack took off and threw the good Rev. ‘under the bus’.
So either Barrack went to the church to get street cred or he embraces this sort of hate. I wonder which. After all, he voted present on many Sunday’s there at that church.
Ooops that was me, LTL at 12:09. I was responding to LTL. :)
Ha! Oh, but I do. Family values conservatives who support Sarah Palin are complete hypocrites.
Really? Perhaps you simply don’t understand family values…not surprised, frankly.
Do you think being for family values means we want “perfect” families? Cuz you are waaaaay mistaken.
It means you stick together as a family, in spite of and because of difficulties.
We don’t look at life as bad or good. We look at how people deal with life. We don’t say “Oh poor so and so, what a crappy life”…we say “Oh wow, look at so and so rise to the occasion”…
We stand behind our families, when sick and old and dying, when pregnant sans marriage, when alcoholic or drug dependent, when in jail or out…
The difference between us and you is that we don’t chuck our families out on the street when they become inconvenient.
I just came back from the dentist…it’s the first time I’ve been to him so I was getting the full monty. He was reading off my teeth to the assistant and he’s say left bilateral molar-present. Right upper molar – present…I just bust out laughing. Said it sounded like an Obama vote!
no mk: you have it wrong.
The inventory would read right brain-absent, left brain-absent for Obama!
That’s cool, HisMan…my favorite color is purple. So much so that i recently dyed my hair purple again. ;)
MK —
Right upper molar – present…I just bust out laughing. Said it sounded like an Obama vote!
Posted by: mk at September 5, 2008 12:18 PM
That’s funny;)
“Lipstick on which pig?”
Lest you think this blog’s profile in the Washington Post today might go to my head, never fear, there will always be those ready to humble me. From today’s Birth Pangs blog, referring to my “Lipstick on a pig” post…
LTL 11:32am
Ever hear of freedom of religion? Its guaranteed in the Constitution. Also, you said Palin is a former member. So what’s the issue?
Whoops,
Anon is me!
Yes Mary, there is freedom of religion, and one is entitled to their religious beliefs, no matter how bizarre, as long as they do not harm others, but I don’t wish to have John Hagee, Warren Jeffs, Tom Cruise or Sarah Palin as President.
LTL,
You pointed out Palin is a FORMER member of the Assembly of God. Apparently she no longer shares their beliefs.
LTL —
I don’t like Obama running for messiah either. The whole lower the level of the oceans thing was over the top. The we are the ones we have been waiting for — simply wild.
I’m glad you read something, but I hardly think Rolling Stone and Jan Wenner is a valid source of family values. He doesn’t seem to have a solid idea of who he even is…
“Wenner and his wife separated in 1995, though Jane Wenner still remains a vice president of Wenner Media. She and Wenner have three sons, Alexander Jann, Theodore Simon, and Edward Augustus.
Since 1995, Wenner’s partner has been Matt Nye a fashion designer. The two men have three children together.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jann_Wenner
(sorry if this posts 2x, there was a glitch)
“Many post abortive women (and men) are indeed clinging to the idea that abortion is okay… They need your prayers and support…They have probably suffered years of self loathing…a post abortive woman who recognizes the great error of her ways…”
Posted by: DeeL at September 5, 2008 8:49 AM
-There’s a lot of disturbing points here. Can we please, PLEASE stop the hand ringing and hysteria over what women are thinking after the decision to abort? Some ppl do NOT regret/feel sorry for their decision and some people do. And no, there’s nothing wrong if you’re not mentally and spiritually tormented if you are not regretful 2 days, 2 years or 2 decades later. It’s just as biased for this side to say that women are in a persistent, unconscious state of trauma after an abortion as it is for the PC side that women can hop on and off the table with ease. It’s not that black and white.
“There are at least 2 million couples waiting to adopt a baby, even those with special needs, but yet there are over 3000 abortions PER DAY in this country.”
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 5, 2008 7:30 AM
-So…why are there so many kids in foster care? Group homes? Conscious or not, many families have a clear idea of what kind of child they imagine themselves adopting and it certainly influences their journey in the process. Minority children are disproportionately left behind in foster care, as are boys, older kids and those with special needs. CLEARLY, there are many families who look beyond this and adopt, either in spite of or because of (which is great). However, this is a smaller number than the norm. The point here is, let’s not pretend that one of the biggest crimes of abortion is it’s keeping the open arms of adoptive parents empty. There’s plenty of kids to go around…people just don’t want them.
“We don’t want to force women to have children. We want to PROTECT unborn children.”
Posted by: mk at September 5, 2008 9:15 AM
-More frustrating semantics. By default, to get B, you must enforce A. In order to ‘protect the unborn’ you must B. Force women to have children. Yes? Let’s just call it what it is.
If Palin had in school kids and/or a stay at home husband, probably wouldn’t be a problem. You’re right, lots of working moms live this way – and there are very few who will say they didn’t wish for more time with their kids – but it is usually the right that castigates those working moms, telling them children first, you don’t really NEED to work, etc. Many working moms (and dads) on the right and left have made choices ranging from taking time off work, to refusing a promotion because it would take too much time from their family responsibilities.
However, Palin has just had a special needs child which is definitely a greater change than just a newborn, which is certainly change and stress enough. Then there’s her daughter’s pregnancy. Beyond any moral judgments, this will certainly be another strain on the family.
Palin saying yes to the VP position shows where her main focus is – it isn’t her family. A VP and quite possible POTUS position isn’t your everyday job. If Palin puts the minimal amount of focus on her family, then she will not be responsible to the American people – and the converse. Palin is displaying the same recklessness and irresponsibility that she did getting on that plane when possibly in labor.
Reckless, irresponsible people are not fit to govern.
It was Jackie Kennedy, who said something like, “if you screw up raising your kids, not much in life will make up for it.” I hope Sarah Palin has heard that quote.
If Palin had in school kids and/or a stay at home husband, probably wouldn’t be a problem. You’re right, lots of working moms live this way – and there are very few who will say they didn’t wish for more time with their kids – but it is usually the right that castigates those working moms, telling them children first, you don’t really NEED to work, etc. Many working moms (and dads) on the right and left have made choices ranging from taking time off work, to refusing a promotion because it would take too much time from their family responsibilities.
However, Palin has just had a special needs child which is definitely a greater change than just a newborn, which is certainly change and stress enough. Then there’s her daughter’s pregnancy. Beyond any moral judgments, this will certainly be another strain on the family.
Palin saying yes to the VP position shows where her main focus is – it isn’t her family. A VP and quite possible POTUS position isn’t your everyday job. If Palin puts the minimal amount of focus on her family, then she will not be responsible to the American people – and the converse. Palin is displaying the same recklessness and irresponsibility that she did getting on that plane when possibly in labor.
Reckless, irresponsible people are not fit to govern.
It was Jackie Kennedy, who said something like, “if you screw up raising your kids, not much in life will make up for it.” I hope Sarah Palin has heard that quote.
Phylo,
How are her kids screwed up? Because one :gasp: has a teen pregnancy? Oh snap! There are a LOT of screwed up kids out there obviously who will NEVER become productive members of society!!! AHHHH RUN FOR THE HILLS! There’s a teen having a baby!
*MAJOR eyeroll*
More frustrating semantics. By default, to get B, you must enforce A. In order to ‘protect the unborn’ you must B. Force women to have children.
Danielle,
You’re conclusion is incorrect. No one is forcing women to get pregnant, therefore no one is forcing women to have children. But for the rare exception, they get there by their own actions. They are in control of their own destinies. Don’t want children? Don’t get pregnant.
It is so funny watching these pro-aborts make the arguement about Palin being a poor mother. They somehow think a dead baby is a better outcome than one raised by a working mom.
They care SO Much for kids, these abortion supporters — LOL.
And to think someone called me misogynistic
“You’re conclusion is incorrect. No one is forcing women to get pregnant, therefore no one is forcing women to have children. But for the rare exception, they get there by their own actions. They are in control of their own destinies. Don’t want children? Don’t get pregnant.”
Posted by: DeeL at September 5, 2008 2:30 PM
-Whoa. Not only is THAT conclusion incorrect, but it doesn’t answer the issue. I’m talking about beyond the act of sex. That was BEFORE. We’re talking about what happens now. “No one is forcing women to get pregnant, therefore no one is forcing women to have children” is truly confusing (and disturbing). How is one point to do with the other?
Even though my guess is this has more to do with policing morality than anything else (hence the throwback to ‘don’t have sex or face the consequences’ rhetoric)…how can you argue that once a woman is already pregnant, a forced pregnancy is not the direct conclusion to protecting unborn?
Phylosopher,
Haven’t you heard her husband is taking a leave and staying home?
A Downs baby is a baby. It eats, sleeps, poops, and needs stimulation just like any non-DS baby.
DS babies get sick, so do non DS babies. My youngest was a non stop ear and upper respiratory infection for a year.
Also, ever hear of special education programs?
There are many resources for this child and others like him.
The right opposes mothers working? Uh, Phylosopher, it is usually the left that supports women like Palin. So where are your cohorts?
Tell me Phylosopher, where was all this concern, yours included, when Democrat and liberal John Edwards ran for the presidency with two small children and a terminally ill wife? Certainly you and your cohorts should have questioned his ability to be a possible single father and president. You should have howled about his lack of concern for a terminally ill wife who may require so much extra attention and care while focusing instead on his political future.
So please, tell me where the left was.
Got on a plane when she was possibly in labor? Give me a frigging break. Never hear of women having babies on planes because they thought for certain they wouldn’t going into labor? Women don’t curl up and play dead because they may go into labor.
To get anywhere in Alaska you have to fly! Also, do you think maybe, just maybe, the plane could have landed and the governor taken to a hospital? There may have been contingency plans for such a possibility. I mean, planes do make emergency landings when passengers get sick.
Her pregnant daughter is almost 18 years old. Apparently she and her boyfriend plan to marry. Do you know for absolute certain this situation may not turn out just fine and they will be very happy?
If Palin puts the minimal focus on her family then she won’t be responsible to the American people. Gag me.
Does this reasoning apply only to Republican women? Hey Phylosopher, Joe Biden’s son has been indicted for fraud. He was advised to get a lawyer specializing in felonies. Ya worried poor old Joe might get a little distracted?
Obama has two small children who,God forbid, could become ill. Could focusing on a family emergency distract him from his job?
How funny that you would bring up Jackie Kennedy who campaigned with her husband while she was pregnant, even though she had lost a previous child at birth and had a small child at home. Gee, John belonged at home with his pregnant wife, instead of having her campaign for him.
She delivered 16 days after he was elected.
Oh, then there was brother Bobby with his pregnant wife campaigning with him, and 10 kids at home. I recall no concern from liberals as to his ability to be a father to 11 children and president.
You lefty hypocrites are really starting to p— me off. Your phony “concern” and double standards are enough to make someone gag.
MK
Thanks for the welcome.
X,
I did take LBs comments in context. I don’t take exception to the content, what she had to say was valid. It just could have been said with more sensitivity to those who do suffer regret and are already paralyzed by self loathing. It was a broad swipe that had the potential to hit a lot of already very wounded women.
Danielle,
No hand wringing, no hysteria. Just a genuine prayer that whatever hardened a woman’s heart enough to submit herself and her child to the horror of abortion will fall away so she can become more than a shadow of what she was meant to be. Should she ever understand (and sadly, yes, there are some who never will) the gravity of her actions, she will need love and support to get her through some very difficult times. If you find that offensive, well then, I guess that’s just the way it is.
Danielle wrote:
So…why are there so many kids in foster care? Group homes? Conscious or not, many families have a clear idea of what kind of child they imagine themselves adopting and it certainly influences their journey in the process. Minority children are disproportionately left behind in foster care, as are boys, older kids and those with special needs. CLEARLY, there are many families who look beyond this and adopt, either in spite of or because of (which is great). However, this is a smaller number than the norm. The point here is, let’s not pretend that one of the biggest crimes of abortion is it’s keeping the open arms of adoptive parents empty. There’s plenty of kids to go around…people just don’t want them.
My wife & I started the adoption process before a family emergency forced us to change plans. If you’re not familiar with it, let me take you to Adoption School for a few minutes….
Firstly, kids in the custody of the state come with serious strings attached to them. You must please the social worker who does your home study, or you’re out of luck. Do you already have a bunch of kids? (Like Sarah Palin does.) Then you couldn’t possibly care for another! Do you believe in corporal punishment? Whoops, don’t let that cat out of the bag! Do you homeschool your kids? Not if you want to adopt! (Even private schools are considered highly questionable.) Etcetera, etcetera….
Adoption is a frickin’ minefield from the adoptive parent’s point of view. Many things can derail the process. One government-employed social worker can block you completely. Do not pass Go, do not collect the child that you are seeking.
Secondly, interracial adoptions are particularly controversial. Did you know that many social workers are claiming that interracial adoption is actually bad for kids? I suppose that it’s better for a black kid to grow up in freakin’ foster care than with loving white parents.
I know some very dear friends who have adopted from foreign countries precisely because domestic adoptions are so nasty. They flew halfway around the world (and spent thousands of dollars they don’t have) in order to adopt some kids, and meanwhile kids are stuck in foster homes right here. Our adoption laws and foster-care system are broken, broken, broken.
Please don’t read more into my rant than I’m actually saying. I recognize that there has to be some sort of process to approve adoptive parents. We don’t want Andrea Yates to adopt a bunch of kids. Some fates are worse than living in foster care. However, there has to be a balance between overly-permissive and where we are right now, because our current system is broken.
Summary:
Yes, there are a lot of kids in foster care, but it is not because people don’t want them. The number of prospective parents who want to adopt is far greater than the number of kids who need to be adopted. Blame our bureaucracies, not the parents who are desperate to adopt.
“No hand wringing, no hysteria. Just a genuine prayer that whatever hardened a woman’s heart enough to submit herself and her child to the horror of abortion will fall away so she can become more than a shadow of what she was meant to be. Should she ever understand (and sadly, yes, there are some who never will) the gravity of her actions, she will need love and support to get her through some very difficult times. If you find that offensive, well then, I guess that’s just the way it is.”
Posted by: DeeL at September 5, 2008 2:52 PM
-No, not offensive, but incredibly patronizing, biased and fatalistic.
“No one is forcing women to get pregnant, therefore no one is forcing women to have children” is truly confusing (and disturbing). How is one point to do with the other?
Danielle,
Well since, as we were all taught back around the 4th grade, the natural and intended result of pregnancy is ,in fact, a child. Therefore, one has everything to do with the other. I’m not sure what you find confusing or disturbing about that.
Nobody wants to “police” morality. Do we want people to accept the consequences when they’ve chosen to behave immorally and the result is a living human being? Yes.
What exactly is wrong with the “don’t have sex or face the consequences” position? If a man chooses to rape and murder your sixteen year old daughter, should he face consequences? If a teacher molests your 12 year old, should there be consequences? How about if the CFO of the company you work for embezzles from your retirement fund? Is your problem with consequences in general or do you only have a problem with those that may have implications for your own life style choices?
Danielle wrote:
Whoa. Not only is THAT conclusion incorrect, but it doesn’t answer the issue. I’m talking about beyond the act of sex. That was BEFORE.
Life begins at conception. Therefore, if conception occurs, then sex is indeed the start of that child’s life. Feel free to check an embryology textbook if you don’t believe me.
She also wrote:
Even though my guess is this has more to do with policing morality than anything else….
That is a popular pro-choice misconception, borne out of not knowing that life begins at conception. The only reason that pro-lifers mention the act of sexual intercourse is because that’s when the child’s life begins. If the child started life when her parents were watching TV, we’d talk about watching TV. However, that’s not how human biology usually works. (Unless you’re multitasking.) Human life starts with conception, which comes from sex, so we have to talk about sex.
And then she wrote:
how can you argue that once a woman is already pregnant, a forced pregnancy is not the direct conclusion to protecting unborn?
The point is that pro-lifers don’t want to force women to become pregnant. Furthermore, if there were some way for women to become “un-pregnant” without killing their children, we’d have no problems. Unfortunately, the limits of our current technology don’t allow that solution.
DeeL wrote:
What exactly is wrong with the “don’t have sex or face the consequences” position? If a man chooses to rape and murder your sixteen year old daughter, should he face consequences? If a teacher molests your 12 year old, should there be consequences? How about if the CFO of the company you work for embezzles from your retirement fund? Is your problem with consequences in general or do you only have a problem with those that may have implications for your own life style choices?
The only problem with your analogies is that all of the actions you cited are crimes. Therefore, someone could assume that you follow the stereotyped view that Sex is Bad.
I doubt that’s what you actually believe, so let me suggest the following analogy:
I eat more than I should, and I also exercise less than I should. As a logical consequence of those two actions — which a heckuvalot of Americans also practice — I am overweight. Actions lead to consequences. If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less & exercise more.
What I should not do is to blame my weight on someone else. I did it. It’s all me. It would be especially heinous for me to punish someone else because of my weight. I’m not allowed to shoot the lady at McDonalds who makes the McFlurries….
And that’s what abortion does. Even if we’d like to avoid one of the consequences of sex — pregnancy — we must not harm an innocent person in order to do so. I’m not allowed to shoot the McFlurry-maker, and you shouldn’t be allowed to kill your unborn child.
Thanks Naaman,
As always, you enlighten.
I guess my point was -Should we remove the consequences for those actions just because they might be difficult on those who participate in them?
Sex Bad? No Way! Sex is wonderful, beautiful and holy. Sex is also extremely powerful. It can bring life, but it can also take it away. So if there is any misunderstanding, when I talk about immorality and sexual relations, I am only referring to those relations which are entered into lightly, without regard to its sacredness and without the maturity to accept its natural consequence, pregnancy, whether intended or not.
“Haven’t you heard her husband is taking a leave and staying home?”
NO Mary, I hadn’t read that – link please. Good to hear it; wonder what he’ll do when the FMLA runs out?
As for Edwards, it was one of the reasons I and many others didn’t support him. Way too much on the plate.
As for the Kennedy’s different times. We’re not saying women shouldn’t do anything when pregnant, but it was expected then that a woman would not pursue her own interests (outside job) – and even the Kennedy women didn’t until the kids were grown – or at least older. So Todd’s got some good role models to follow. Even Hillary stopped practicing law when Bill was elected.
BTW, Palin wasn’t in Alaska, she was in Texas, and that’s part of what makes her reckless, irresponsible and inconsiderate. It was a high risk pregnancy, and 8 hour flight – at least a quick trip to the local (Texas) hospital to check that all was well?
So, I think at least for now Naaman and DeeL have brought the point of my discussion to its conclusion. Another point of dispute is 1. life at conception and 2. the sacredness of sex. I can understand how your POV on these two issues can color your view on abortion.
I won’t go into my views on when life begins and what that life means before you’re born, since it’s been beaten to the ground. But for the record – I get everything that DeeL said – sex is great, wonderful, beautiful. But not holy or a sin – at least to me. It’s pretty much the most human thing you can do. We are not virgins here (right?), so I can say that fortunately, all of my sexual experiences to date have been pretty positive (if not a little pedestrian at times). Sometimes, it did feel really powerful and bonding. But – that did not lead me to feel that a hypothetical conception brought out of that would’ve been divine intervention…more like, two people who got pregnant by accident and now, have a host of decisions to make. Our ‘sacred union’ in the bed wouldn’t influence that decision.
Danielle,
You have made a very common mistake by reducing sex to something merely utilitarian and by doing so you have reduced yourself and your partners to nothing more than interchangeable means to self gratification. I am very sorry for you that you do not know the joy of genuine and total, self giving love.
Phylosopher,
He wouldn’t be on a FMLA since this is not a family medical issue. Also, he will be moving to Washington with his family. I heard this on TV, whether it was during the convention or after I’m not certain.
Fine, you didn’t support Edwards. Where was the “concern” and outcry about him running? I never heard a peep, especially on this blog where there has been incessant wailing and gnashing of teeth over Palin. Where was the MSM, the liberals?
By the way Phylosopher, who cares for the Obama children while Mrs.O campaigns with her husband?
Hillary Clinton? Phylo, why wasn’t she keeping a closer eye on her own household and family, if you catch my drift? What about the trauma and humiliation Bill inflicted on his daughter by his behavior? Maybe he should have paid more attention to Chelsea instead of romping with Monica in the Oval Office.
Different times? Mrs.Kennedy flying around and campaigning for her husband while pregnant. A small child at home. Good heavens who cared for her? Also Mrs.K had nannies while she travelled extensively and attended to the duties of first lady, which were extensive. She certainly didn’t leave them in their father’s care. Ethel Kennedy would have had to do the same, even with 11 kids.
I hardly think Todd Palin needs any role models for caring for his children.
Funny, but you don’t question the ability of men to be president, tend to their families and be good fathers. Why is that Phylo?
So what if she was in Texas? They don’t have hospitals and landing strips? Planes have never made emergency landings there? Was she even in labor? Did she have any reason to be concerned she would go into labor? How do you know for a fact she didn’t get a medical clearance before boarding the flight?
I support moms satying home and being FULL-TIME MOMS.
The reason why moms feel the need tow ork is ebcause of the price increase of housing and the like. With two adults working its easier to up the cost of a home and mortgage payments.
The government promoted day care in the 80s which is what many working moms need in order to work regularly. The government ignored its own studies that showed negative results of day care on children because they were so driven to get moms working and away from their children.
Its all documented in the book Day Care Deception.
Today we have Obama with his own 0-5 plan to take care of your children.
Its a sickening trend and its been promoted by the government.
See Mary, as soon as we begin a reasonable discussion, someone like ezeeek pops up to reconfirm why it’s the right that’s hypocritical in their support of “Palin – working mom” – and generally that’s what the left is doing, pointing out the right’s hypocrisy regarding women’s “place.”
IMO, there needs to be a primary parent in charge (or some real shared responsibility) and in most cases, this doesn’t happen – tons of studies attest to it. And in the case of low wage earners, some government assistance.
(And upon reading some new articles, it appears he isn’t taking an FMLA, but that he’s been on leave for quite some time, mainly because of the conflict of interest if he still worked for BP in AK – and there are certainly some questions still going on with that – his access to some confidential emails, it seems.
BTW, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a medical crisis has to be in place, it’s actually the Family and Medical Leave Act.
So…all those Kennedy examples of yours don’t amount to a hill of beans in this argument – a First Lady at that time would have been expected to tend to a sick or small child, appointments cancelled, etc. Sorry, but that’s not what happens for the actual office holder – and would we want it to be?
But it is an interesting conundrum – if all of you Phyllis Schlafly types on the right suddenly want to be converts to full citizenship for women, why welcome, but then you’ll also have to tell the ezeek types what they can do with their “women should be barefoot, pregnant and cookin’ me up some vittles” comments. Expect another internal division.
“as soon as we begin a reasonable discussion, someone like ezeeek pops up to reconfirm why it’s the right that’s hypocritical in their support of “Palin – working mom” – and generally that’s what the left is doing, pointing out the right’s hypocrisy regarding women’s “place.
IMO, there needs to be a primary parent in charge (or some real shared responsibility) and in most cases, this doesn’t happen – tons of studies attest to it. And in the case of low wage earners, some government assistance. ”
Ah Phylo, we most definitely agree on something…let’s cherish this moment…
LTL, (lots to learn)
So you have had a few days to thing about it.
What species of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
affectionately
your knuckle dragging neanderthal, not bitter, but still clinging to Jesus and my guns
Ok Bobby,
moment enjoyed, OK. But now to practical – how do we allow for one “home” parent or that shared responsibility for those who aren’t rich? We’ve just done welfare to work – without rolling those gains back? Every time a program is proposed, there’s the kneejerk cry of “socialism.” Ideas?
Yeah, that is the question. Unfortunately, I have no idea. I’d think some extra benefits for the working parent would help, though again I”m not sure what kinds of benefits. Yeah, I don’t know much about this stuff, as is obvious…
I’ll use myself once again as an example to show that just because you don’t consider sex some sacred, god-given act of self-sacrifice, and you put more emphasis on the blastocyst settling in for the long haul to humanity rather than just a joining of egg and sperm when it comes to the begining of life…just because you see the world through secular eyes, Danielle, that is not an excuse to lull yourself into thinking for even one minute that it is ok to kill your child. If you like, my 6 year old can explain to you why abortion is wrong, and she won’t even mention God a single time. (She will probably get quite worked up about it though, as it is something she feels quite strongly about…not that I blame her. If I was her, I’d be just as adamant, and thankful that my mother was as resolute in her conviction as I was)
“You have made a very common mistake by reducing sex to something merely utilitarian and by doing so you have reduced yourself and your partners to nothing more than interchangeable means to self gratification. I am very sorry for you that you do not know the joy of genuine and total, self giving love.”
Posted by: DeeL at September 5, 2008 4:43 PM
-That’s ok, you can save the pity. I’m quite ok with it, really. Actually, I get the joy of self giving love (?) from myself but I know that’s not what you mean. Allegedly I’ll get some of that genuine stuff you’re talking about when I get married! Looking forward to it.
“…just because you see the world through secular eyes, Danielle, that is not an excuse to lull yourself into thinking for even one minute that it is ok to kill your child. If you like, my 6 year old can explain to you why abortion is wrong, and she won’t even mention God a single time.”
Posted by: xalisae at September 5, 2008 9:36 PM
-Goodness, I certainly wouldn’t want to have such an adult conversation with a 6 year old, let alone debate it! That’s ok – let her know I’ll take a rain check.
Yeah…having to explain something like that to a child who asks you about it rather sucks. It breaks my heart to think that only a little over half a decade ago, with a little cash given to someone with the right prefix on their name could’ve sliced and diced the life right out of her-and it all would’ve been perfectly legal. I do find it sad and almost amusing though that my 6 year old little girl has the sense to understand how utterly wrong something like abortion is, and so many adults do not.
Phylosopher,
Sorry, but its the left on the attack against a working mom in this case. I never said I have any objection to women working outside the home, and it is the left that has argued a woman can do it all.
Yes ideally there should be a primary parent in charge, though feminists have argued right and left that a child has two parents and both are equally responsible for the child’s upbring.
Also, I well remember the days when a mother was given custody of her child even if she wasn’t fit or didn’t even particularly want it. A male was simply assumed to be not quite as fit a parent as a mother.
If you check out FMLA there is nothing about a spouse’s political campaigning. There must be a reason such as medical, the adoption or birth of a child, or a medical problem with the employee.
I don’t care why he’s taking a leave, he’s taking one. Just as I don’t care if Michelle Obama quit her job or is on leave. I also assume she sees to the care of her children when she must leave them, as does Sarah Palin.
Yes a first lady would be expected to attend a sick child, (why not the president?) but for the most part nannies tended the children while the president and first lady attended state dinners or went on foreign trips, or the first lady was attending her daily duties.
Why would Todd Palin be any less capable of tending a sick child than Sarah?
I would have no problem with the president attending a family emergency and that goes for the VP as well, whatever the gender.
BTW I remember when Jackie Kennedy went into premature labor and lost a child in 1963. Certainly no one objected to the president taking time from his duties to tend to this unexpected family crisis. He certainly had plenty of staff to keep an eye on things.
For the record I have been a working mother since I ended my first six week maternity leave 25 years ago. I am not a fan or follower of Phyllis Schafly. I am the daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter of single working mothers.
-Goodness, I certainly wouldn’t want to have such an adult conversation with a 6 year old, let alone debate it! That’s ok – let her know I’ll take a rain check.
Posted by: Danielle at September 5, 2008 10:44 PM
Who would debate a five-year old on anything? Ask ten five-year olds if it’s OK for a woman to get rid of a baby in her womb that she doesn’t want. It may be hard for an adult to hear their answers. A five-year-old’s mind can see things more clearly than the rest of us can.
Intellectual Inconsistency
I was once charged with trespass for refusing to move from the doorway of a building where pre-natal humans were being killed. In the subsequent trial I was interviewing perspective jurors. They all answered questions under oath, understanding that lying would be perjury, a crime. I read the part of the 14th amenndment to the U.S. Constitution which states: ‘nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I asked each perspective juror which of these three rights was pre-eminent, life, liberty, or property. Each one of them said liberty was the most important. I then asked them how you could possibly enjoy liberty if you had been denied life. They all said you could not. I then said, ‘If that is true, then you would have to say the right to life trumps all others, would you not?’ Each one of them, in turn, agreed. Life is numero uno/number one.
Now here is the interesting part. I could only interview one juror at a time. The remainder of the jury pool was present and heard me ask all the previous persons the same questions. But when it came their turn, each one of them answered the same way. Initially, liberty was the most important right, but when asked how you could enjoy liberty without life, logic dictated that the right to life is our most valuable right.
All the perspective jurors answered the questions honestly. But initially they were all honestly wrong. When required to exercise logic they had to acknowledge the truth: Without life every other right is meaningless.
What kind of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
Here are some clues: not bovine, not feline, not canine.
I know this is really difficult for some of you. You do not want jeopardize your bliss by giving up on your willful ignorance.
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
And all the fifth graders said, “Human!”
What do you say?
ps:They convicted me of criminal trespass. I believe they would have voted to execute me if the penalty had been available. I know some of you would have.
Bobby Bambino’s appallingly insensitive statement saying that we must not abort
fetuses becuse it’s just plain wrong, but
that it’s perfectly okay to allow them
to grow up poor, malnourished, poorly educated, and at risk for abuse and neglect shows the rank hypocrisy of those who are opposed to abortion.
They don’t give a @#%$^%$ about what happens to unwanted children once they’re born, or whether their parents will have the means to take good care of them, and they don’t want the government to subsidize poor mothers because that’s”socialism”, and many want the government to make contraception illegal, which would only cause a marked INCREASE in abortions and create a black market in contraceptives, and they couldn’t care less about the devastaing resulting of making abortion illegal. Unbelievable.
Robert you miss the point. The point is that just because someone will grow up poor or malnourished NEVER justifies killing someone. You have no idea if they’ll be poor or malnourished or not. And no, I was not saying it’s OK to let them grow up poor or malnourished.
But the truth is Robert, if I claim that one can not do something evil, it is not my responsibility to provide an outlet for the results of NOT committing an evil act. If I tell you you can’t rape someone, it is not my responsibility to provide you with an alternative for sexual release. Rape is intrinsically wrong in and of itself, as is abortion. That being said, we have been and will continue to do the SUPEREROGATORY work of helping the poor and downtrodden, which has nothing to do with the morality of abortion.
“but
that it’s perfectly okay to allow them
to grow up poor, malnourished, poorly educated, and at risk for abuse and neglect”
I never said that. I said you take away their opportunity to do any of that by slaughtering them before they have a chance to experience it or anything else. But you would rather make the decision for them that no life is better than a life of poverty.
“They don’t give a @#%$^%$ about what happens to unwanted children once they’re born, or whether their parents will have the means to take good care of them, and they don’t want the government to subsidize poor mothers because that’s”socialism”, and many want the government to make contraception illegal, which would only cause a marked INCREASE in abortions and create a black market in contraceptives, and they couldn’t care less about the devastaing resulting of making abortion illegal.”
Let’s get past question-begging arguments and straw men, Robert. I was simply pointing out how absurd your argument was that since they won’t grow up well, they should be killed. Is this your main argument for the legality of abortion? That since according to you they will not have a quality of life that you deem fit, they should be killed?
It seems to me that you are basing the morality of abortion on its consequences. Are you a utilitarian Robert? Do you hold to the ethic that says that whatever brings the greatest pleasure to the most number of people is defined as “good”? What is your ethical basis?
Robert @ 10:02,
I know Bobby can defend himself but I just have to say:
Are you having a case of amnesia? Are we talking about the same Bobby Bambino – the kindest person to ever comment on a blog? You’ve been around long enough to know that he cherishes life from natural beginning to natural end.
Well, unfortunately for your arguement, Robert, the pro-life movement is like a well-tempered blade. The hard-liners, who I think are the movement’s strength and power, are tempered with secular pro-liers and moderate christian pro-lifers, which adds flexibility and credibility to our conviction. The fact that not everyone is prowlife makes our struggle hard, but to add that fact to the fact that not even every pro-lifer in the movement is anti-contraception makes what you describe impossible.
I am the oldest of 6 kids from a small town. My father didn’t graduate from high school. Sometimes dinner faire was pretty sparse. However, I defy you to walk up to me and tell me to my face that my mother should’ve killed any of my siblings, or that I am doomed to uneducated poverty simply because I come from a humble background. You would have to crawl away, I assure you.
Exactly X. We have no idea how people born to poor families will end up. And even if we knew with 100% certainly that they would not lead a happy life, that doesn’t give us the right to kill them. Many great people had humble beginnings.
I hate having to get used to a new input. I love my new Blackjack II, but a qwerty keyboard on a phone is proving to be somewhat challenging for me. This is why I’ve been making typos seemingly nonstop lately.
And, what I find “unbelievable” Robert, is that you actually care about children and their well-being. If you did, you’d be fighting for social services reform and adoption reform…you know…institutions that are supposed to cover all those thing you try to seem so concerned about, but for the most part don’t any longer, because they’ve become drunk with their own power, or have started caring more about the money than the kids.
Oh BTW X, if I haven’t mentioned it before, I’m VERY glad when we’re on the same side :)
me too, BB. This ticket really has me hopeful and energized about our cause.
Alright, I just had to post this after watching it. I find the back and forth (by each party of course) on the gender card and lack of experience funny to watch. The Daily Show did a nice comparison of conservative analysts/reporters and the sudden change of tune they have now that their party has a woman in the running. Pretty funny really.
Watch Here
yeah, dan, it’s pretty funny as well how supportive of traditional families and stay-at-home moms liberals have gotten too.
Dan,
What about the sudden change of tune with liberals and feminists?
The comparison between rape and abortion is ridiculous. Men don’t rape women out of
sexual lust, but because those who do are
mentally ill and can’t control their urge to hurt women. And men CAN easily get sex without rape, by going to prostitutes
or finding willing sexual partners.
Rapists have a sick compulsion to do violence to women.
Saying we shouldn’t allow abortion because
we don’t know whether children will be
poor, malnourished, poorly educated or abused
is ridiculous. The fact is that conditions
like this are inevitable if poverty exists.
Just look at countries like Germany,
the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the
Scandinavian countries. This part of the
world has the LOWEST abortion rate in the
world, because there is far less poverty
there, and contraceptives are easily available and widely used.
Conservatives say that the high taxes here are terrible. But the government
provides for people. Nobody has to worry about getting by. Out of work people don’t lose there homes as is so common here.
I’m not a socialist or communist by any means. Communist governments are and have been horrible. But the high taxes have great benefits for people in Europe.
I’m not saying that these countries are paradise; of course they have serious problems. But the fact is that in general, people are much better-off and more secure in Europe than many in America.
If what Obama proposes to do works, and I’m not sure it will, the abortion rate could plummet in America.
“Men don’t rape women out of
sexual lust…”
I never said they did.
“…but because those who do are
mentally ill and can’t control their urge to hurt women”
OK. So the question remains; if I tell them they can’t rape, do I need to provide an alternative to hurting woman for them? Is that part of a solid moral foundation? “You can’t do this action so here’s an alternative?”
“Saying we shouldn’t allow abortion because
we don’t know whether children will be
poor, malnourished, poorly educated or abused
is ridiculous.”
No, I’m saying we shouldn’t allow abortion because it is killing someone. Again, let’s cut out the straw men. That is not my argument. You argument implies that “If we think they will grow up poor, then should allow abortion.” My argument is not some quasi-negation of that statement. Can you directly and willfully kill someone as an ends to a means if you think they will grow up poor?
“Just look at countries like Germany,
the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the
Scandinavian countries. This part of the
world has the LOWEST abortion rate in the
world, because there is far less poverty
there, and contraceptives are easily available and widely used.
Conservatives say that the high taxes here are terrible. But the government
provides for people. Nobody has to worry about getting by. Out of work people don’t lose there homes as is so common here.”
None of this has anything to do with slicing up a fetus in the mother’s womb. Robert, you refuse to look at abortion in and of itself. You continue to put forward a utilitarian ethic. Are you REALLY a utilitarian? Do you take utilitarianism to its logical conclusions, which include straight up infanticide? If you do, then fine. I’ll discuss this with you from that point of view. But if you’re like most pro-choicers, you’re not willing to go that far, and your above argument is simply question begging as to the act of abortion in and of itself. So put forward either a bodily autonomy defense of abortion or a human being/ human person dichotomy to defend the act of abortion itself. Or embrace full-blown utilitarianism. God love you.
Robert, I agree with you that rape is not about sexual release, so it’s incorrect to say that the men need another form of sexual release. I’m inclined to think that there are very few ‘acceptable’ actions that provide the same release a rapist gets from raping.
Anyway:
Saying we shouldn’t allow abortion because
we don’t know whether children will be
poor, malnourished, poorly educated or abused
is ridiculous. The fact is that conditions
like this are inevitable if poverty exists.
No one is saying that kids won’t go hungry, or be beaten. They will, and it’s awful. But abortion is a lazy solution to poverty or hunger. There are solutions that don’t rely on killing those who are more likely (not guaranteed) to grow up hungry or poor. I agree with you that government support for the least fortunate members of society is helpful, and something to work towards. Especially as a way to help lower the abortion rate.
I’m pro-choice but I just hate the argument that abortion is needed to prevent poverty. If we can’t help alleviate the burdens of poverty without abortion, then we’re not working very hard at it.
I think Switzerland has low taxes, though. Which is weird. Maybe I’m wrong, though — I mostly just know what little I’ve gleaned from lunch-hour fantasies about moving to Switzerland. I figure, at least I’d be putting my French to good use! ;)
Oh, bother, somehow I missed Bobby’s comment. I’ll shut up now.
No, well said Alexandra. Steve Sanders would be proud :)
Heh, Bobby, one year we were watching the Thanksgiving parade from my Dad’s midtown office, our faces sticking out of the window (parents holding us back nervously the whole time, I’m sure). The 90210 cast had a float, and my sisters and I swore on our crossed hearts, for days afterwards, that “Steve” had not only looked at us but had made eye contact. With all three of us. Ten stories up.
I was slightly disappointed, though, because I hated him the most out of everyone except maybe Donna.
And to think someone called me misogynistic.
LB, hope you’re not referring to me. I was very distinct about judging you vs. your comment.
I am post abortive, but am now, after a long, long recovery, very pro life.
DeeL, I’m really glad you’ve found peace. And I agree with everything you said about how to draw people to your community and viewpoint. Very wise, and I’d love to see more people putting that sort of thought into practice everywhere. And thanks for being kind.
Although I’m pro-choice, I’m so, so grateful that I’ve never had to face that choice myself. My husband and I have been using barrier contraception consistently since the beginning (almost 20 years ago) since neither of us wants children.
But if it failed, we’d be stumped. The only real concern that would hold us back right now would be my age (40s), but it’s a huge stumbling block due to family-history health concerns for me and a potential fetus.
I’d probably consult a few different doctors and weigh out the chances that I wouldn’t have to abort late-term to save my life or health, which is something I absolutely would do while feeling God wouldn’t condemn me for the decision. I’d hate it, though, because I think there’s a huge difference between aborting early and late, in terms of suffering for a fetus.
And to be honest, I can’t even begin to get worked up about a zygote. Distinct DNA aside, the female body flushes out an unknown (but probably significant) number of fertilized eggs. They’re potential babies. If they were actual suffering babies, that would be seriously messed up. Or in other words, if God/Mother Nature/whatever doesn’t care about them until they at least implant, why should I?
Interestingly, since college, I don’t know any women in my various social circles who’ve admitted to having an abortion, which might be weird, considering that they’re almost all liberals (and pretty cynical to boot). But I do know more than a few couples whose use of birth control has failed, but they’ve decided to have the child. They’re still adamantly pro-choice, though, because they believe it’s their own choice, never the government’s.
Sorry for the long and rambling, but I thought it might be interesting to put out a possibly different “pro-abort” (or whatever you crazy kids are calling it nowadays) viewpoint.
I’m pro-choice but I just hate the argument that abortion is needed to prevent poverty. If we can’t help alleviate the burdens of poverty without abortion, then we’re not working very hard at it.
I agree with you totally. My own parents were war-time kids, and there are tons of poor families who don’t stop having kids but make the best of it and raise amazing families.
I’m in favour of the parents being the only ones qualified to decide what they can handle. Again, not the government or their community.
Alexandra, I’m jealous of your 90210 float witnessing. I’ve always been hardcore anti-Kelly, although she didn’t irritate me in the new one, so maybe there’s hope.
Lucy,
If you’re so certain you do not want children and you have health concerns, did you or your husband ever consider a vasectomy or tubal ligation? Personally, I can’t understand why you haven’t by now.
Helen Reddy – “I am Woman”
– I’ve always hated that song. Reminds me of abortion.
I do too, Janet. I was a kid when it was popular and I thought it was silly. A Helen Reddy song I do like though, is “You and Me Against the World”. :)
Danielle,
You never said whether you thought all consequences are wrong or simply the ones you don’t want to deal with.
Mary wrote:
“Sorry, but its the left on the attack against a working mom in this case. I never said I have any objection to women working outside the home, and it is the left that has argued a woman can do it all.”
P: You may not have, Mary, but it’s something the right is known for. Just as some may argue that a woman can do it all (and a very few can, with the right luck, and support) some of us know that cloning isn’t yet a possibility and doing it all needn’t mean simultaneously.
M: Yes ideally there should be a primary parent in charge, though feminists have argued right and left that a child has two parents and both are equally responsible for the child’s upbring.
“P: exactly. So where’s the argument? i hadn’t heard that Todd Plain was on leave, as Sarahcuda kept talking about her “oilman hubby/snow champ/fisherman” with nary a mention that he was/has been chief cook and bottle washer and diaper changer.
M: Also, I well remember the days when a mother was given custody of her child even if she wasn’t fit or didn’t even particularly want it. A male was simply assumed to be not quite as fit a parent as a mother.
P: And if you read your history, shortly before that, it was always the man who got custody of the kids, because they were considered his “property” (loose term) since women had no rights.
….
M:Yes a first lady would be expected to attend a sick child, (why not the president?
P: Because s/he promised a country that his/her first concern would be that ocuntry, and things like nuclear crisis, hurricane relief etc., don’t wait. You don’t take a leave of absence from the position…
M: but for the most part nannies tended the children while the president and first lady attended state dinners or went on foreign trips, or the first lady was attending her daily duties.
Why would Todd Palin be any less capable of tending a sick child than Sarah?
P: Because it wasn’t made clear that he was willing or able to take the time to do so. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Also, I’m not talking about “little Piper has a cold…my experience with DS children is that they often have other anomalies like holes in heart, etc. that can require major surgical intervention.
I would have no problem with the president attending a family emergency and that goes for the VP as well, whatever the gender.
BTW I remember when Jackie Kennedy went into premature labor and lost a child in 1963. Certainly no one objected to the president taking time from his duties to tend to this unexpected family crisis. He certainly had plenty of staff to keep an eye on things.
For the record I have been a working mother since I ended my first six week maternity leave 25 years ago. I am not a fan or follower of Phyllis Schafly. I am the daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter of single working mothers…
Posted by: Mary at September 6, 2008 1:05 AM
P: Then I suggest the next time Schlafly and her ilk raise their ugly heads, you send them this missive.
Phylo,
How are her kids screwed up? Because one :gasp: has a teen pregnancy? Oh snap! There are a LOT of screwed up kids out there obviously who will NEVER become productive members of society!!! AHHHH RUN FOR THE HILLS! There’s a teen having a baby!
*MAJOR eyeroll*
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at September 5, 2008 2:22 PM
Uh, gee Elizabeth, a teen having a baby isn’t the point. A teen with such a high profile mom, who so vocally promotes abstinence only education is the problem. Teen rebellion to the nth degree – why is Bristol so angry with mummy and daddy? Those are the questions that point to a more serious problem.
A teen with such a high profile mom, who so vocally promotes abstinence only education is the problem.
So if Sarah Palin had promoted contraception (which do you know for a FACT she didn’t?) and her daughter didn’t listen, would that be a problem for you. Are you really blaming Sarah Palin because her teenage daughter didn’t take her advice? And when you were 17 you did everything your mommy told you?
Teen rebellion to the nth degree – why is Bristol so angry with mummy and daddy?
What makes you think this has anything to do with teen rebellion or anger at her parents? Does it occur to you that, in the heat of the moment, Bristol and her boyfriend may just have let things go further than they had planned?
I for one, was totally unaware that teens have sex because they are pissed off at their parents. I know I’ve been told here enough, that it feels good.
Now I’m confused.
Tell me, to 20 year olds have sex because they are ticked off at their folks?
Do 30 year olds have sex because they are mad at their bosses?
Goodness, I’m afraid to ask, but why do 70 year olds have sex?
Phylo,
OK, if “the right” goes after women as you claim, then certainly the feminists and liberals should make themselves heard in her support, right? So let’s hear from them in support of Palin. Otherwise, they are every bit as hypocritical as they claim “the right” is.
I’m not arguing about the primary parent, only addressing your point and correcting your misinformation about her husband.
I’m well aware of my history. Women were viewed as property as well. What I was pointing out is that gender is irrelevant as to the fitness of a parent and our society had and still has biases in this area.
Concerning Kennedy I was pointing out that a family crisis knows no gender or bounds and any president or VP could well be called from their responsibilities to respond. Kennedy had to take time from his duties as president when his wife had an emergency C section and the baby lingered a few days before dying. I’m sure the VP and his staff kept an eye on things. This could happen to Palin, Obama, McCain, or Biden.
I’m sure contingency plans are always in place for such an emergency.
Speaking of screwed up kids. I remember when 60 Minutes had a piece about a young woman from a prominent California political family, a young woman who was every parent’s dream as a teenager and who had every opportunity in life, wound up going on a murderous rampage with her boyfriend just for the heck of it. One of her victims was a mother of three children whom she totally paralyzed with a shot through the neck.
Even the “best” of kids don’t always turn into sterling adults.
Since I couldn’t care less about Schafly or what she thinks, I likely won’t.
Also, check out People magazine on Gov. Palin.
Yes People, sometimes its a good source of info.
Concerning her plane ride. Palin was in Texas for a conference and was not due for 5 weeks. Her water began leaking and she returned immediately to Alaska. She delivered 8 hours AFTER she returned to Alaska.
She admits her shock, apprehension and anguish on discovering her son would be DS. She told only her husband. Gee, Palin sounds just like any other woman who discovers she is carrying a special needs child.
Her husband took a leave when the baby was born and it has been extended indefinitely. To show what further uncaring parents the Palins are, a physical therapist has been engaged to help little Trig with his development and Palin joked that people she is talking to from her office are often unaware she is breastfeeding at the same time.
Palin was in Texas for a conference and was not due for 5 weeks. Her water began leaking and she returned immediately to Alaska. She delivered 8 hours AFTER she returned to Alaska.
No wonder the pro choice side thinks birthing babies takes over their lives…what? Are they camped out on the hospital steps for the last 8 weeks of their pregnancies “IN CASE” the baby comes early?
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that many of these woman either have no children or few children.
Ask any mother of more than 4 and she’ll tell you that you don’t stop living cuz you’re pregnant. And EVERY member of the family helps to care for the younger members. This includes the six year old, holding and preening her brother.
If this is how you guys view motherhood, it’s no wonder babies scare the cr*$ out of you…lol.
Robert:
Why don’t you move to Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, one of the Scandinavian countries then.
And yes you are an extreme socialist if you think things are working so well over there.
Perhaps you’re not aware of the Muslim problems in the Netherlands or th eoverall atheistic sentiments in Europe.
Your solutions to reduce abortion are demonic.
I am not a socialist extremist at all.
I did not say that everything is hunky
dory in Europe. of course they have serious
problems there. But what conservatives advocate for America is far worse.
They naively assume that if the government just keeps reducing taxes, the economy will be great, and prosperity will increase greatly.
And that if we just make abortion illegal, it will go away and children will grow up healthy and be well taken care of.
But what will happen if religious conservatives get power will be nothing but tyranny.
The government will pry into our bedrooms, gays will be not only denied rights but even persecuted. What we read or view in private or public will be arbitrarily censored and banned.
The unemployed and those born poor will be denied help. Abortions will only increase, and women will die from botched illegal pregnancies or coat hangers.
And conservatives claim to be returning our “freedom”? Talk about Orwell’s 1984.
When large numbers of poor, unwanted children are born, it has devastating effects on society. it increases poverty,unemployment and crime.
With freedom like this, who needs tyranny?
McCain’s own reference to ‘Lipstick on a pig’
Video proof @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
Republicans the champions of misogyny…They can dish out the lipstick on pig references (Hillary Clinton) but can’t take them.
I’m well aware of my history. Women were viewed as property as well. What I was pointing out is that gender is irrelevant as to the fitness of a parent and our society had and still has biases in this area.