Sarah and Bristol Palin In Touch cover: "We're glad we chose life"

Wow, it can't get any more pro-life than this, the new In Touch magazine cover...

palin, In Touch, abortion, pro-life.jpg

The tease, posted on the magazine's website today...

Bristol Palin didn't know what she was in for when she made the life-changing and controversial choice to have a baby at the young age of 18. But after she gave birth to her son, Tripp, in December 2008 - and broke up with her boyfriend, Levi Johnston - the reality of single motherhood quickly set in.

bristol palin, in touch, pro-life, abortion.jpg

"I remember sitting on a black recliner, just bawling my eyes out," Bristol tells In Touch. "I was just rocking Tripp to sleep because he had been screaming for so long. I was just like, 'What am I going to do? This is as bad as it gets."

Though raising an infant has been challenging, Bristol has the unconditional love and support of her family - especially her mother, Sarah Palin.

After all, no one can better understand the complicated decision to have a baby under difficult circumstances. Just a year earlier, at the age of 44, Sarah carried her son Trig to term, even though she was told during a sonogram that he would be born with Down syndrome.

Now, the mother and daughter are sharing a unique experience - raising baby boys together under the same roof. In an exclusive interview at the family's home in AK on January 10, Sarah and Bristol plopped down on the teenager's bed and opened up about the joys and challenges of raising Tripp and Trig. With Trig's birth, Sarah's vice presidential run and Bristol's very public pregnancy during the campaign, "The last few years have been unreal and surreal," Sarah tells In Touch.

For the full exclusive, including heartwarming photos of the family and complete interview, plus the Palins' joys and challenges of raising their sons, check out this week's issue of In Touch, on newsstands Friday.

Of course, libs are aggravated...

air america, palin, pro-life, abortion.png

But hey, Air America, "Pro-Life"? You're slipping. And it's always funny how "choice" is great unless it's the "choice" for life.

Here was a funny one, at ChicagoNow.com...

Chicago Now, Palin, abortion, pro-life, pro-choice.png

... just couldn't say the word, "LIFE."


Comments:

This story represents a phenominal cross over by the Palins and the article subtley, and beautifully, demonstrates their pro-life message to an audience that is not normally reading for politics. The symbolism of both mothers holding two children that are typically aborted cannot be lost. This picture says a 1,000 words.

Posted by: Bailey at January 13, 2010 9:22 PM


Can't get any more pro-life than.... not killing your own baby? Millions of people in America, including large numbers of Democrats, are thoroughly pro-abortion, and they didn't kill their own kids. Choosing to not kill your own kids is not any indication that someone is pro-life. They are pro-abortion with exceptions... the exceptions being their own children.

What has Sarah Palin EVER done in elected office to actually fight abortion? Ever? Honestly and sincerely. What?

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 9:34 PM


Yeah why do the libs get mad? Its says CHOSE life. Isn't the word you have to use "chose" or "choice" so they did. So whats the big deal? oh right...their baby boys are alive and healthy not dead and chopped up. got it.

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 13, 2010 9:53 PM


Exactly, Sydney. All she did was exercise her "choice."

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 9:57 PM


Could this be more beautiful!!!! I mean really, could it!!!!! YES INDEED ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!!!

Posted by: Diane @ IDSC For Life at January 13, 2010 10:15 PM


Amen, Diane. All life is precious. Including the tens of thousands of babies murdered with "Plan B," which Sarah Palin insists should remain legal.

Legal abortion, advocated by Sarah Palin. She has never repented of this position. Has any friend of hers EVER loved her enough to tell her that she should stop advocating keeping Plan B legal? Has any friend of her's cared enough about Sarah to tell her to stop advocating legal abortion because Plan B murders many thousands of innocent babies?

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 10:20 PM


Jamie, I will be her friend, I will tell her right now! I agree with you on this. I do not believe in ANY exceptions, including any plan! So yes, she needs to investigate this more. The prolife community needs to "teach" her about this. Jill does a beautiful job of teaching this. However, this will not stop me from celebrating how beautiful those two boys are on the front cover of a magazine. Two years ago, I would have paid a well known person to do this. Today, they are doing it, in spite of the nay sayers! They know that ALL life is precious. My heart goes out to mothers who buy the lie that it is best to abort their child, for their sake, then later realize they were wrong. Right now, if what you say is true, Sarah Palin may not understand this as fully as we do. It is all a journey, and she is on the right path to that journey. The last time I checked, that was a good thing!! Go Sarah Go! You are becoming an advocate for LIFE! I believe you will continue to grow and learn that indeed, ALL life is precious! How do I know this? Trig and Tripp are teaching you!!!

Posted by: Diane @ IDSC For Life at January 13, 2010 10:36 PM


Right on, Diane. I'm certainly praying that Sarah Palin will become pro-life.

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 10:41 PM


One last thing, can someone give me a resource that shows Sarah Palin's views on Plan B? I can't find them.

Posted by: Diane @ IDSC For Life at January 13, 2010 10:41 PM


Normally, I'd say "glady" but in this case I have to say "sadly," Diane. Here you go.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/eveningnews/main4490788_page3.shtml

In this nationally-famous interview with Katie Couric, she also explains that she would not punish parents who murder their own children. She would "always" oppose that. Which sadly shows that she doesn't consider the unborn to be real persons. After all, she would probably support the death penalty for a parent who pays someone to dismember his or her 2-year-old child, wouldn't she? But she would "always oppose" even mere jail time for such a parent who pays someone to painfully dismember his or her 20-week unborn child. She needs friends and loved ones to tell her that this is a real, unique, living human being with a God-given right to life, and that it should be a crime to kill such a child. That abortion is always wrong, including when it is done with a chemical weapon instead of a scalpel or scissors or a suction tube.

She needs someone to love her enough to tell her the truth.

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 11:06 PM


Oh my, you are referring to the Katie interview when you discuss this with the world. Okay, now I get where you are coming from. Very clear now. Wow! As for the women who "buy the lie" and abort, and their punishment, well, I guess we part ways here too. My heart goes out to the women who buy that lie. So you and I are light years apart. Hope this works out for you! As for me, I will stand with compassion and love, and look at those two beautiful faces on the cover of a magazine, and say, LIFE IS GOOD!!!

Posted by: Diane @ IDSC For Life at January 13, 2010 11:28 PM


Diane, are you saying that parents who murder their children should not face criminal punishment? If someone murders their 10-year-old, cuts his arms and legs off, they should face no jail time...?

Or do you reserve that "compassion" only for people who do this to children of certain ages? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, here.

It is not compassion to give a pass to people who brutally dismember their children. That is not the kind of compassion people need.

And the fact remains that Sarah Palin advocates keeping some abortion legal. That alone demonstrates that she is not pro-life. And I would find it very ahrd to believe that someone in her position has never heard that Plan B terminates pregnancies by the tens of thousands. To argue such a thing would be to insult Palin's intelligence in the extreme. She is not an idiot, and she is not blazingly ignorant of central and fundamental political issues like this. She is aware and she defends keeping it legal.

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 11:42 PM


And what difference does it make that Sarah Palin volunteered this confession in her interview with Katie Couric? I fail to see the relevence, there.

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 11:45 PM


On a side note, I just read where Bristol Palin announced her "celibacy vow." Awesome, and God bless her for taking that courageous, public stance as an example to other teens!

Posted by: Jamie S. at January 13, 2010 11:50 PM


The new she-god is "Mother Choice".

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 14, 2010 12:52 AM


I was once lost (Personaly opposed but,,) but now I know the Truth , Pro-life ,Whole -life,no exceptions. Redemption is possible.I found it! Many of us former Fools for the feministas bought the lie. Now we know better and try to teach those who are still blinded by it. Pray her into The Clarity of Truth,it will happen.Prayer is a powerful Tool to help each other,Blessings to Sarah Palin

Posted by: markie at January 14, 2010 1:33 AM


I don't think Sarh Palin is pro-choice. She is pro-life. She doesn't believe in punishing women who've had abortions. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't punish the doctors who perform them, or throw Roe v. Wade into the trash can.

Fetuses are so hidden and unseen. It is hard to see their humanity because of that. Many women don't know what they're doing when they have abortions. If you kill a ten year old, or a two year old, or a four year old, there is no excuse, no way you could not know the child is a human being. But the same often cannot be said of women who have abortions. So there really is less cupability in the case of abortions.

The ignorance about the humanity of the fetus is nurtured by the abortion industry, who wants society to be pro-abortion.

Today the pro-life movement focuses on offering women alternatives to abortion. They also work for the healing of women who have had abortions, as such women often experience great emotional pain when they realize what they have done.
I'm sure this is Sarah's position on it too. This is the most compassionate way to handle it.

Posted by: Ceecee at January 14, 2010 2:25 AM


Is it evil to advocate that States have the right to kill old people?

Is it evil to advocate that States have the right to kill pre-born children?

Sarah Palin believes States DO NOT have the right to kill od people. That's good news.

However, she believes States DO have the right to kill pre-born children. That calls for rebuke.

We need to love Sarah Palin enough to tell her she's wrong, and that, we will not support her, until her views on life honor God, the Maker of life.

Posted by: MBallentine at January 14, 2010 8:12 AM


Jamie,
How do you think post abortive women, like myself should be punished?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 8:29 AM


Instead of Listening to the Bias Media,
Try listening to the Truth (From Sarah Palin herself. I'm sorry I don't by into the left media and lies. Why not Listen to Her on Fox News.
And Try walking in her shoes.

As far as I'm concerned Sara Palin is Christianity and Humanity
Not that vanity and Insanity the Left Wing Media Paints her to be.
Yes On some of these comments I choose to agree to disgree. I've opened my Eye and Do See.
I'm Sharing the Kinder.
I'd taking off the blinders.

Why not try.. and See it through God's Eyes.
She's Christianity at it's Best.
I see her doing her best to pass God's Test.
On this Topic I will not Rest.
You See.

I'm a believer
and Dream Weaver.
Looking Under the Hood.
To Help other's Like Her Who are Misunderstood.
And try to do God's Good.

Why must We Shame and blame
To Other's Names.
Don't we have Enough of that in Our OWn name.
Start By Your Own Sin
(Is it Your Worry to Judge Sarah Palin or Her Daughter)
What I see is two amazing Daughters of God

Remember Him, the One whose Not a Clod,
The One with teh Heavenly Bod.

He's the Boss,
He's the One Who Loss His Only Son at the Cross.
Am I getting My Points Across.

News Flashing
To those Who are Bashing and Trashing
Sarah Palins Name in Shame or blame.
That's a Sin.
That's Where We need to Start.
Hey I'm Just Sharing from the Heart, my Heart smarts..
We are all Sinners.
But I know I'd love to Sit Down to a dinner
and address with her some of these very issues
that are being posted here.
The Truth is What I want to hear with my ears.
Not things that do appear hear.
The Lies and the Deception.
I'm a Truth Seeker..
And Not wanting to be Weaker.
I'd rather her be the Speaker.. On What
She does or doesn't believe.
And then It's Open for Debate.
(It's her Story to Advocate and Educate)
HER CHOICE HER VOICE.

Posted by: Laurie L. Thomas at January 14, 2010 10:00 AM


Carla, how should a woman be punished if she kills her fully-born child? At 6-months age? 2 years? 6 years? 10 years?

How should a woman be punished if she pays someone else to dismember her fully-born child, without anesthetic?

This is a hard truth, Carla, and I sincerely mean it when I say that I am thankful for the grace you have experienced because of our broken legal system which does not recognize the murder you participated in. But you continue to avoid my question, which I asked you first.

What is the difference? If parents should receive "no jail time" for paying someone to dismember their pre-born child... then that child is not a person.

If the preborn child is a person, then of course they would be punished exactly the same as if they pay someone to cut off the arms and legs of a fully born child. That is brutally tough truth, and I don't pretend to know what it feels like. And I thank God for Jesus Christ, that He is with you to heal the pain and regret of what you did. I am not your judge; He is. But if you are in Him, then His grace covers you and I will know you in heaven forever.

What punishment do you think would be appropriate for a parent who pays someone to dismember his own fully-born daughter alive? What punishment?

And how is that not the same, exact crime as doing the exact same thing to a preborn child? How is it different?

I keep asking questions here, and nobody can answer them. What has Sarah Palin done to defend the unborn? All I get is "What hasn't she done?" and "Well, she didn't kill her own child." That's it? She was the executive officer of the largest state in America. When we try to get abortion banned nationwide, what do they say to us? Oh, can't do that... it's a states rights issue. Well, she was in charge of the state! Where was she? What did she do?

Oh yeah. She put a Planned Parenthood executive on the supreme court and then lavished praise on her as an "outstanding" judge of good "character." Oh yeah, she overturned the democratically-voted will of the people to aggressively establish recognition of gay unions, even though the people of Alaska had voted overwhelmingly against it. Oh yeah, she was too busy advocating keeping abortion legal, and promoting taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research, compromising on "thou shalt not murder" for political gain, ie. to get elected.

That's where she was, in office. Not promoting the right to life of the unborn by supporting pro-life laws and initiatives. Not by encouraging anyone to ban abortion. Not by having her attorney general investigate the rampant fraud and other criminal activity of Planned Parenthood.

It's a states rights issue? Then where was she, when she was in charge with the biggest state in the union?

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at January 14, 2010 10:18 AM


Dear Jamie,
I haven't continued anything with you nor dodged any question. So you were addressing me when you were addressing Diane?? Since this is the second time I have commented on this thread.......

How should I, Carla be punished? I am asking you Jamie. How would you punish me? What do you think? I am curious to know what your answer is.

You assume much if you think I don't know hard truth.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 10:56 AM


Carla, you want to make a matter of right-and-wrong into a matter of emotion. How have I not already answered your question?

I, punish you? I do not work in law enforcement or criminal justice, so I have no authority to personally punish you or anyone else. When did I say I would personally punish you? We are talking about principles of right and wrong and what our criminal justice system should do to people who murder their own children.

Indeed, I have already answered your question, more than once. Clearly, a parent who has his/her fully-born child murdered should face the exact same criminal punishment as the parent who has his/her pre-born child murdered.

There is no difference.

That doesn't mean I hate you. I doesn't mean I want harm to come to you. It is just the truth. There is no difference, because the unborn child is a real person, not just a blob of cells. Truthfully, my own brother is guilty of a crime that deserves the death penalty. However, he is walking around, free. I recognize that he did not get the just punishment he should have gotten. Does that mean I hate my brother? Does that mean I want to kill my brother? Of course not. You are trying to make this into an emotional issue. But we are talking about absolute right and wrong, not relative morality.

So, for the umpteenth time, what punishment do you think a parent should face for paying someone to dismember a fully-born child? Why can't you or anyone answer that question? I keep asking it, and nobody seems to be able to give an answer. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at January 14, 2010 11:11 AM


Just answer the question. What punishment would Jamie Schofield like to see handed down to women who abort their children?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 11:17 AM


I am not sure why your opinion is so hard to articulate. You obviously have some VERY strong feelings about it.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 11:21 AM


Carla, you are changing the subject, which is a childish action. The topic was not "what is the appropriate punishment for all murderers regardless of the victim?"

The question posed was whether the same punishment should apply regardless if the victim is preborn or fully born.

If you want to change the subject and talk about something else, we can do that. After you answer my simple and straightforward question. Because, anyone is a hypocrite who says that they are pro-life and that they think the unborn child is a person but then they turn around and say that that the preborn child's murder should get a free pass, but the fully-born child's murderer should not. That is hypocritical, and it is relative morality. I'm saying the victims are equal, they are the same, and their murder should carry the same punishment. That is the question.

Now, if you refuse to answer the question and demand, childishly, to change the subject, and continue to try to insinuate that I'm some kind of maniac who hates your guts, then we're at an impasse. But, if you address the question, then we can act like adults and progress.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at January 14, 2010 11:37 AM


Jamie, even in cases where a person was killed, there are levels of punishment. Murder one, Capital murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc. These levels all depend on the intent of the person who commits it as well as various other circumstances, self-defense, etc. There is no ONE punishment for anyone who kills another person. Circumstances and intent are ALWAYS taken into account.

According to you, the woman who kills her abusive husband in self defense (NOT premeditated) should get the same punishment as the thug who guns down a clerk at the 7-11.

Posted by: Peg at January 14, 2010 11:48 AM


Carla, let me help you out sweetheart (not that you need it:)

Jamie!

You haven't repented yet?

I am convinced that if you were alive in Jesus day when they caught the woman committing adultery, you would have been in front of the mob with as many big rocks you could carry.

What punishment did she deserve Jamie? Why didn't Jesus pick up a rock? She was caught in the very act. Where was the guy who under Jewish Law deserved the same death penalty?

You just don't get it do you?

You are like the religious leaders in Christ's day, “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”. So what punishment does the woman who takes the morning after pill deserve? Stoning unto death? Is that your “hard truth”?

You need get into the Gospels and read and study what Jesus said to the scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites. Check out Mt 7, “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Check out Is 58, go on a fast and pay particular attention to Isaiah’s exhortations to “not fast for strife and debate” and “remove the heavy yoke of oppression. Stop pointing your finger and spreading vicious rumors!”

Jamie, you are deceived. It’s OK though, we’ve all been there.

Look, God demonstrated the futility of using laws to try to rehabilitate mankind.

We need a change of heart. That is why Jesus came, so we could be born into His Kingdom and spread the Good News of His Mercy and Grace.

Thank You Jesus!

Now, ask me how I know so much about being a self-righteous hypocrite.

Posted by: Ed at January 14, 2010 11:55 AM


A thought or two, on the "punishment for abortion" idea (though, Proverbs 26:17 comes to mind when I think of stepping into the mix!):

As was mentioned in another thread (with ex-GOP Voter, I think): punishment for an evil act depends on many things: the agent's knowledge of the evil, the agent's freedom while performing the evil act, the gravity of the evil act itself, etc. If one or more of these factors is lessened, then justice demands that the punishment be lessened, as well. A few examples:

(extreme #1)
Person #1 sees an abandoned young girl, and--with full knowledge of the evilness of the act, and with sufficiently free will--kidnaps her, binds her, and kills her by dismemberment.

(extreme #2)
Person #2 has been told to push a red button. Many people with authority and influence in his/her life have insisted that this person push the red button, and they warn that dire things will happen if the button is *not* pushed. The person's instincts sound some alarms, but they're not sufficient to overcome the psychological pressure and his/her own failure to see any problem. He/she pushes the button, and a child in the next (soundproofed) room is dismembered by a machine.

I think, for anyone with a sense of right proportion, it's plain that Person #1 should be treated as a (premeditated) murderer, and Person #2 should be regarded as an innocent dupe unworthy of any formal punishment at all.

Jamie: unless I misunderstood you, you're asserting three things: that abortion is always and everywhere a despicable evil, that those responsible for it should be punished, and that (if I understand your assumptions correctly) every woman who procures an abortion must be sufficiently responsible for the act to warrant punishment. I completely agree with the first idea; I conditionally agree with the second idea (if God allowed the stoning of adulterers, but allowed both David and Bathsheba to live after their adultery, then we should be very wary of making an exceptionless rule about punishments); and I disagree completely with the third idea.

The following is certainly true: "to the extent that a given woman was morally responsible (i.e. the extent to which she had knowledge of the evilness of the act, and freedom to choose/do it), the woman should be held accountable (whatever that might mean, given the circumstances)." But I think you can see how many variables and unknowns and uncertainties are in that mix... which should prevent us from making any absolute claims about punishment.

Mind you, I'm not addressing your complaints about Sarah Palin at all (separate issue); but this issue seemed to need some attention, in and of itself.

Posted by: Paladin at January 14, 2010 1:10 PM


@Carla--After I lost my daughter two years ago I received a book from Focus On The Family. It's called "I'll Hold You In Heaven", written by Jack Hayford and it deals with the subjects of pregnancy/infant loss through miscarriage, stillbirth, SIDS, and even abortion. He handles this topic with such dignity and sensitivity. I think you'd like it!

Posted by: Lorelei Walker at January 14, 2010 1:54 PM


Back when abortion was illegal, the American justice system never went after women who had abortions - they went after the abortionists instead, figuring that the women were in desperate, desolate situations. Regardless of whether women who have abortions should be criminally prosecuted if abortion becomes illegal, it would be a huge task to try to successsfully argue that they should be.

When it came to appointing someone to the Alaska Supreme Court, Sarah Palin had a limited number of people to pick from, and she decided that the Planned Parenthood executive, despite their obvious and fundamental difference on abortion, was the best candidate among those people. It's not like she could have chosen anyone at all and still went with a Planned Parenthood executive.

Posted by: Marauder at January 14, 2010 2:21 PM


Hi Lorelei,
I have read it and love it and pass it out to post abortive moms and women who have miscarried. I am 19 years out from my abortion and have done MUCH in the way of healing. Thank you for your care. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 2:29 PM


Jamie,
I am insinuating nothing. You keep saying that I think you hate me.I don't really care what you think of me, to be honest. I am changing the subject? I am being childish? Ok.

BUT you continually come here to this blog and rant, YES I said rant about women who get abortions and how they should be punished. I have read all of your posts about that and about Sarah Palin and on and on it goes.

If you are saying that women who have abortions should be punished it follows logically(at least to me anyway)that the question would be

If it were up to Jamie what would the punishment be?

No worries. You won't hurt my feelings. I have heard this punishment deal over and over and over and have yet to read what the proper punishment might be. You must have one in mind to keep coming here and saying there needs to be a punishment.

So.........spit it out.

The fact that you claim to be a Christian and prolife intrigues me and I am just curious.(or childish, I guess)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 2:38 PM


Hi Ed, Paladin, and Marauder,
Do you think women should be punished who have abortions and if so what would that punishment be?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 2:41 PM


Assuming Sarah Palin is pro-life (which she's not by the traditional definition of 'pro-life' that you believe the unborn baby is a person) she brags that she won't elect politicians who will stop the killing. From her book:

"It was assumed that I refused to hear alternative points of view and used topics like abortion and homosexual marriage as a political litmus test. I explained that I had never asked anyone, including the Democrats I appointed, what their position on abortion was, and I didn't discuss my opinion on homosexuality with cabinet members or judicial appointees, either."

Wow...pretty sad huh? I hope Jill Stanek and all those who post here are not planning on supporting a candidate that is unwilling to stop the killing. That's unacceptable.

Posted by: Connie at January 14, 2010 2:46 PM


Carla, the answer to your question is on YouTube in a video called Libertyville Abortion Demonstration Response located here --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzOcTJpgx0k

Posted by: Connie at January 14, 2010 2:52 PM


Cute kids. Bristol's baby is a big boy. Well, I guess his jerk of a father is tall.

Posted by: Phillymiss at January 14, 2010 3:02 PM


Connie,
Is Sarah Palin running for office?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 3:02 PM


That is a great question Carla and I'm going to have to chicken out and not go on record until I give it some more thought.

Going into my deliberations however, my initial impression would be to give the woman couseling for the 1st offense and increasing jail time for subsequent offenses.

Having said that, the guy in the video makes a pretty good point that if the penalties were more severe in the US, we'd see a lot fewer abortions here. Undoubtedly, a lot of women would want to travel to other countries to have their pregnancies terminated. There again, they could be tried back in the States for executing the ultimate child abuse act, much like sexual predators.

So that's my starting point. And it's probably a little soft because we haven't, as a country, defined or codified the personhood of the preborn child. Once that's done, culpability goes up.

I do believe the abortionist should face stiffer penalties.

Posted by: Ed at January 14, 2010 3:21 PM


Hi, Carla,

Sorry if I go over ground I've already said: I lose track of what I've said, on what thread! (I'm also grading a stack of final exams, which is slowly turning my brain to Jell-O...)

You wrote:

Do you think women should be punished who have abortions and if so what would that punishment be?

My answer: "It depends." It depends on a dizzying number of factors--the most important of which are:

1) To what extent did the woman know that what she was about to do was wrong (especially in the face of a relentless and near-ubiquitous abortion-promoting propaganda campaign in our country, aided shamelessly by the mainstream media and others)?

2) To what extent was it a free choice, as opposed to being coerced (by any of ten-thousand ways, from harassment to threats of abandonment or murder)? I think especially of what I've read on the excellent site called "The Un-Choice":

http://www.theunchoice.com/

If, hypothetically, a woman were fully aware of the grave evil of having her child murdered (and if she knew that an abortion was precisely that), and if she freely chose to go forward with it anyway, then she should be treated as would be any 1st-degree murderer. I will say, as I said before, that I suspect the number of women who would "qualify" for this category is vanishingly small.

If, hypothetically, a woman were sufficiently deceived into thinking that she was merely "ridding herself of a mere blog of her own body's tissue" (and the sincerity f her innocent deception could possibly be gauged by her grief-reaction after finally accepting the truth), then I think she would merit no punishment at all, but only pity and compassion.

Beyond that, I can't possibly answer the question, since the permutations of circumstances are legion. I mean, how do you quantify the extent to which a woman was aware of her child's life, dignity and rights? For example: how much does the militant secular-feminist belligerence (which is so pervasive in the western world) impair her freedom to say "no" to the current secular-feminist idol of abortion? I have no idea... since it'd be different for everyone.

Finally, there's the issue of repentance to consider, and the extent to which any future threat to the woman's not-yet-conceived children (and the threat to other unborn children, through her desire to spread pro-abortion propaganda) has been fully neutralized. If someone spits in the face of a judge who convicts her of abortion, she should certainly be treated differently than another woman who tearfully grieves the murder of her child and wishes to atone for it.

Does that help?

Posted by: Paladin at January 14, 2010 3:54 PM


Carla said, "Connie,
Is Sarah Palin running for office?"

Yes! As we speak no less.

Posted by: Connie at January 14, 2010 4:39 PM


Carla,

I have given serious thought to your punishment. You are hereby sentenced to visit my new acreage and patiently and quietly endure me waxing eloquent for hours and hours about all our plans, designs, hopes and dreams for the place. Once your eyes have glazed over you will then be forced to ingest whole wheat biscuits and gravy made from home ground flour, fresh goat milk, home raised Chevon sausage and free range eggs on the side. Once I have stuffed you to capacity you will then have to help us dig post holes, build goat sheds, construct next boxes, plant trees and till in the cover crops. If you have any life left in you we will frog-march you into the kitchen for help with canning produce. After that you will again be force fed free range Persian Eggs in fresh, homegrown sautéed tomatoes. If you aren’t begging for mercy by then we’ll have to sit you down with my husband after dark so he can enlighten you with HOURS of stargazing through his telescope (that one is enough to make me run!) and the velvet black country sky……

If you survive you will receive no further punishment.

I have spoken.

Posted by: Hooves at January 14, 2010 5:28 PM


wow, everyone needs to go out and buy a lot of copies of this magazine to show the liberal media that this message is popular!! and that believing in life is the right choice!

Posted by: jill at January 14, 2010 6:51 PM


Thank you Ed and Paladin! It is hard to wrap my head around but I will say if abortion had been illegal I never would have had one. I am still pondering.(Hi Jamie)

Hooves,
Sounds like a little slice of heaven to me. I'm already packed. Already packed!!! Now git over here and pick me up!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 7:54 PM


Connie,
What office is Sarah Palin running for?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 14, 2010 7:55 PM


I'm sure Bristol really executed personal choice in the matter...yeah right: "Daughter of VP Hopeful Chooses Dilation and Curettage, Heads off to College." Hmm: "Trigg Palin Becomes Uncle at Age Two." Weirdos.

I feel bad for Trigg and Tripp, two more pawns in Palin's phony populist charade. I loved seeing Palin's baby paraded before blaring spotlights at the RNC. Highly effective media exposure. What a crock.

Posted by: Megan at January 14, 2010 11:56 PM


Ah, Megan is here to show us the tolerance of left. Let us bask in its glory.

Posted by: Lauren at January 14, 2010 11:58 PM


What tolerance? Palin has a baby with Down's Syndrome and becomes a poster woman for the pro-life movement. Can't you see what a sham she is? Plenty of women have kids with mental disabilities and deal with it every day, with far less fanfare (and support). Where are the pro-lifers when state health and human services departments, as a result of massive budget cuts, pull the plug on disability services funding? Where are the pro-lifers when there are 0 psychiatrists in a midwestern state county?

Oh, right: promoting the well-being of the almighty fetus.

Posted by: Megan at January 15, 2010 12:20 AM


Hey look it's Megan. How is that intellectual dishonesty thing working out for you?

You care to go round two and explain how it is, by your definition, that a fetus is a not person?

Remember, a blastocyst is a unique individual totally independent of its mother's body initially.

Posted by: Oliver at January 15, 2010 12:56 AM


Amen, Diane. All life is precious. Including the tens of thousands of babies murdered with "Plan B," which Sarah Palin insists should remain legal.

I am rapidly driven crazy by people that oppose Plan B yet personally take or do not oppose the legalization of the birth control pill, shot, patch, ring, IUD. These other before-the-fact birth control methods kill children just like Plan B does after-the-fact. But it lets women that think birth control is responsible and use it in the marriages play moral superiority to those women that have sex outside of marriage and use Plan B. That's all it is. It's self-righteous hipocrisy. Married or single, used before or after, the children of Plan B users and these Christians that oppose Plan B but use the pill- there kids are equally dead.

We need to educate her on Plan B? Apparently we need to educate EVERYONE on contraceptives hormones/chemicals in general. Why Plan B, which is just a concentrated dose of the average pill, is targetted as evil when women put the same abortive in their body each day without any qualms- what is THAT?

Consistency would be nice here.

Posted by: Jacqueline Christine Harvey at January 15, 2010 8:56 AM


Dangers of birth control
Alert – Birth Control Drugs & Devices Linked to Serious Injury & Even Death http://bit.ly/1DhWdG
Dr. Lynn Kerr
Associate clinical professor from the UC at San Francisco explains the deadly side-effects of the birth control pill.
(video on webpage) http://thepillkills.com/

About abstinence
Facing Life Head-on~ Epi 6:No Regrets When It Comes 2 Sex
Talks about abstinence & The PEERS Project
http://bit.ly/8c6M3r

We need to share what we can on the development on the unborn

Watch unborn 4Weeks 4Days old~ heartbeat in action http://bit.ly/2pXiim

The embryo has brainwaves by 6 weeks, 2 days!
From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size.1 Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram (e-lek’tro-en-sef’a-lo-gram), or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.2
Also by 7 weeks, cell groupings resembling taste buds appear on the tongue3 and hiccups begin.4
http://bit.ly/5QenK4

By 8 weeks, 75% of embryos exhibit right-hand dominance. The remainder is equally divided between left-handed dominance and no preference.

http://bit.ly/5KcR28

Interactive Prenatal Development Timeline
http://bit.ly/4LOwmi

Posted by: RooForLife at January 15, 2010 11:19 AM


Yes, Oliver. The blastocyst floats in cyberspace before implanting itself in a woman's body. Ahahaha. Okay, I'll suspend my disbelief for a brief second and say the fetus is a person with the right to life. Why do conservatives consistently undercut services and programs that help individuals throughout the life stage, instead focusing political attention on the well-being of an embryo or fetus? I'm not talking about individual acts of good will--like bringing a few baby clothes to the local crisis pregnancy center. I'm talking about advocating for structural changes to make having children easier and more productive, particularly for under-resourced women. Why do conservatives privilege the health of the fetus above all else?

Posted by: Megan at January 15, 2010 11:29 AM


Megan: "Yes, Oliver. The blastocyst floats in cyberspace before implanting itself in a woman's body. Ahahaha. Okay, I'll suspend my disbelief for a brief second and say the fetus is a person with the right to life."

It isn't cyberspace. It floats through the fallopian tubes. Good to see you finally cave on your own premises. If you are being sarcastic, however, you should open a biology text book and read for yourself how it all works. (It is actually pretty basic biology, and as someone who advocates abortion, I would imagine that you would have done some research on the subject.)

Megan: "Why do conservatives consistently undercut services and programs that help individuals throughout the life stage, instead focusing political attention on the well-being of an embryo or fetus?"

I'm not sure what you mean, considering the Conservative push for the Pregnant and Parenting Student Act, but I can more easily answer your question by "who cares?" I don't necessarily consider myself a "Conservative" but "pro-life."

Besides, you are starting from a pretty lofty assumption. What makes you think that opposition to entitlement programs equates to some sort of lack of compassion? What has welfare done to raise people out of poverty anyways?

And to steal from Bobby a bit, what does it matter if every pro-lifer is the most evil horrible person in the world? How does that effect whether or not the fetus is a unique human person with the right to not be neglected by its caregiver?

Posted by: Oliver at January 15, 2010 11:55 AM


Okay, so existing inside a fallopian tube (inside female bodies) as opposed to a womb constitutes physical independence? Right.

And (shocker!) I am actually in favor of legislation that supports student parents, for both university students and high schoolers--as a necessary component of a broad reproductive rights agenda (including access to contraception and abortion). BUT the E. Cady Stanton act, while on the surface appearing very glossy and pro-woman, the bill makes a mistaken assumption: that, given sufficient resources, college-aged women would undoubtedly decide against abortion. Plus, the $10million provision the bill mandates wouldn't stretch very far, since FFL as satellite programs across the country. Also, the bill doesn't mention anything about contraception--if a girl faces an unexpected pregnancy and brings the child to term, wouldn't it be wise to help her find a reliable method of birth control so she won't face a similar situation in which, if she brought the second pregnancy to term, she wouldn't have to stretch her already-limited resources?

I'm assuming you use the term "entitlement" in a pejorative sense. Support programs for poor young mothers (including welfare) reinforce the humanity of the children being raised in these tough situations (and I believe Feminists for Life did oppose welfare reform...). Most conservatives--who also happen to be pro-life--vote against "entitlement programs," invoking the lazy welfare queen trope in the process. This isn't a personalized issue about compassion and character: it's about voting patterns and legislation, which all point to the conservative privileging of fetal well-being, as opposed to children (who have been born). These voting patterns puncture tons of holes through pro-life "pro-woman" rhetoric.

Posted by: Megan at January 15, 2010 1:32 PM


Okay, so existing inside a fallopian tube (inside female bodies) as opposed to a womb constitutes physical independence? Right.

And (shocker!) I am actually in favor of legislation that supports student parents, for both university students and high schoolers--as a necessary component of a broad reproductive rights agenda (including access to contraception and abortion). BUT the E. Cady Stanton act, while on the surface appearing very glossy and pro-woman, the bill makes a mistaken assumption: that, given sufficient resources, college-aged women would undoubtedly decide against abortion. Plus, the $10million provision the bill mandates wouldn't stretch very far, since FFL as satellite programs across the country. Also, the bill doesn't mention anything about contraception--if a girl faces an unexpected pregnancy and brings the child to term, wouldn't it be wise to help her find a reliable method of birth control so she won't face a similar situation in which, if she brought the second pregnancy to term, she wouldn't have to stretch her already-limited resources?

I'm assuming you use the term "entitlement" in a pejorative sense. Support programs for poor young mothers (including welfare) reinforce the humanity of the children being raised in these tough situations (and I believe Feminists for Life did oppose welfare reform...). Most conservatives--who also happen to be pro-life--vote against "entitlement programs," invoking the lazy welfare queen trope in the process. This isn't a personalized issue about compassion and character: it's about voting patterns and legislation, which all point to the conservative privileging of fetal well-being over the well-being of children (who have been born). These voting patterns puncture tons of holes through pro-life "pro-woman" rhetoric.

Posted by: Megan at January 15, 2010 1:32 PM


Megan: "Okay, so existing inside a fallopian tube (inside female bodies) as opposed to a womb constitutes physical independence? Right"

Am I physically dependent on someone's body if I put my finger in their ear? Of course not. Your definition of personhood is to not be dependent on a human body. Location does determine dependence. Hell, you yourself claimed that a fetus past 22 weeks is a person because it is no longer solely dependent on its mother's body. What is the difference? If anything, a blastocyst is less dependent on its mother's body in the first few days than even a fetus at 33 weeks.

Posted by: Oliver at January 15, 2010 3:27 PM


Carla said, "Connie,
What office is Sarah Palin running for?"

President.

Posted by: Connie at January 15, 2010 11:46 PM


Not currently, Connie. We can only hope!

Posted by: xalisae at January 16, 2010 1:37 PM


"Glad we chose life"??????

Was there any other option?
Sarah, Bristol...
Your babies were not choices! Morally speaking, it was never up to you whether or not you should or should not give birth! This kind of language reinforces the notion of "choice". Women get pregnant... women give birth. It's that simple. Think...someday, abortion will be illegal, God willing, and any participant will be arrested and charged for the murder of a living, individual human person,(both the mother and the abortion provider, because both are willingly and with malice aforethought ending a life), and having a law on the books will make this as clear as black and white. Wouldn't it better that you demonstrated to the world that the idea you could choose whether or not to give birth was not even a part of your consciousness, that, of course, you had your babies. What else would you do?? I think you should prevent the media from celebrating as special the fact that you gave birth to your babies even though the circumstances were't optimal. I know you believe that's what we are all SUPPOSED to do! People are just going to read it and say, "Hey, glad your choice worked out for you, but you've got money." Or, "Wow, with all the money and support they have, having a Downs Syndrome baby or having a baby as an unwed teenager is still such a scary idea that these women would consider abortion, what does that mean for me, without the resources they have??" If you want to share your family with the world in magazine articles, that's totally cool, because we love you and can't resist learning about you...we would all love to sneak a peek, and share in your joy. And we'll see your values put into play in the real world. But this headline actually puts me off...it sounds like you both actually considered abortion as an alternative, that you MADE A CHOICE. There is no choice for those of us who understand what God wills for this world, and I'm afraid somehow you're not quite catching that you're misrepresenting yourselves. That's another danger of legalized abortion, (besides bringing about the murder of millions of people and providing the temptation to women to commit murder.) When a woman gives birth, she does something that should be taken for granted, that should not even merit comment, that is something that just should happen, but the fact that there's a choice erodes that understanding. This headline reads to me like "I'm glad we didn't murder two people."

Posted by: Pat at January 16, 2010 2:48 PM


Something I find interesting is that
people get pissed off when someone
actually MAKES A CHOICE, to chose life.
if you are pro-choice, why get mad when a
women DOES CHOOSE what she believes in (which is life,like sarah and bristol). Would you rather have someone holding up a dead baby (or to some "fetus") saying, i'm glad I chose abortion?
I really don't get it.

Pro-choice is just another word for "we are pro...women deciding to have abortion- not the 'true to term' , pro (women can decide for themselves)

because if you were truly someone who was "PRO" women deciding for themselves why GET SO MAD WHEN A WOMAN CHOOSES LIFE! ...

Posted by: Jay at January 16, 2010 3:06 PM


Abortion saddens prolifers but choosing life enrages pro aborts.

X or Connie,
Let me know when Sarah Palin runs for office. I will be sure and donate to her campaign.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 16, 2010 3:17 PM


Jay,you are right about that,too. Liberals do cast up to us the use of the word "choice." They see it as hypocritical. That's why the use of the language of "choice" is so detrimental to our cause..the cause of life. Nobody chooses. Nobody. That's what we want because that's how it should be for oh so many reasons. Even for those who aren't led to this through faith...it's a humanitarian issue. That small person is a unique living human that cannot be replicated, the threat of abortion makes that little person an endangered species, because once killed, he or she can never exist again in this world. Okay, off on a tangent. Sorry!

Posted by: Pat at January 16, 2010 3:27 PM


Aaah! Jay, and you know what else I just realized?? (Lightbulb above my head.) Liberals see us as hypocritical when we use the word "choice" and it makes them mad because they see it, in some weird twisted way, as that we are saying to them, it's okay for US to make a choice, but not you! What do you think? Get it? For them, the whole debate is not about what's right or wrong, it's about being told what they can or cannot do. Which is such a completely adolescent attitude. I'm not explaining this well. But I think I'll post this anyway. Let me know what you think!

Posted by: Pat at January 16, 2010 3:38 PM


Well i'm trying to see the oppositions perspective and to me... it seems like everyone gets so angry when we protest and try to help women make an INFORMED CHOICE.

When you make a choice you should be completely informed? Correct? It seems to me that people just get angry when their cause starts to looks weaker when people courageously step out into the light like sarah and bristol did, and put a face to a pro-life attitude.

Posted by: Jay at January 16, 2010 3:54 PM


Absolutely, Pat!

I've been debating abortion on YouTube since before I came here (oh, my goodness...such a terrible place)...and if you look at all the profiles for the pro-death camp, they're full of pokemon backgrounds, hello kitties and various animes and video games. Sometimes I'm astounded to look at the profile age and find some of these individuals are into their 30's!

The attitude surrounding abortion is inherently selfish, and selfishness is inherently childish. We are having generations upon generations of adult-children being brought about by poor or no parenting, and that's fostering this attitude of "ME ME ME" that fits abortion like a glove.

Personally, I blame the touchy-feely crap they started teaching in public schools around the time I was in elementary school, blowing smoke up our rears about how great we all were 24/7 because they were worried we might have low self-esteem. Now everyone has too much esteem, so much so that a decent chunk of the youth population thinks that their convenience is worth the lives of their children.

Sorry for the tangent, it's just...I've been thinking similarly now for quite some time, you just articulated this better than I could have.

Posted by: xalisae at January 16, 2010 3:59 PM


Just came from Mass, and I'm thinking...when we protest, anything we say or do that fails to come from love, (as Jesus taught) for the mother, the doctor providing the abortions,or those who are ProChoice is doomed to fail. We want to lead these people away from actions that separate them from God, and in doing so, we protect life, but anything angry, anything derogatory, anything sarcastic...none of that will help, because it's not of God. Jay, yes, it is important to make sure women are making an informed decision, and information presented with kindness and love for THEM will help them to listen more willingly. I mean, what if we say, "I don't want this (the abortion) for you, I don't want you to be part of this awful, awful thing, I don't want you to carry this tragedy throughout your life, I want you to have the privilege of bringing a new soul into the world, I want YOU to have that joy, this is what I want for you, as well as this new person." God's love can help us do that. And I know that could make a difference. And even if women aren't filled with faith, they will see the power of our faith, and trust us. And if they trust us, we can help in so many ways. We have to line up with God's will, too, and that is not to judge, but love our neighbors (and our enemies!), and pray for them. In love! I still will pray for the full restoration of legal recognition of life at conception, and for the full weight of the law to serve as a deterrent. Maybe we're too angry. All I know is that it sure seems like everybody goes round and round in blogs on this stuff and nobody gains any ground, we just want to score points. Me included.
lol... Clearly, it was a really, really inspiring Mass :-)I would never have the courage to say all this in person to people. Bless you all. ALL.

Posted by: Pat at January 16, 2010 6:52 PM


I'm afraid I might get chewed up and spit out over my opinion here, but I'll chime in. Sorry; this could be long.

Let's start with some background. I'm a 27-year-old mother of one. I had an IUD for nearly 3 years after my son was born because my husband and I were in no financial position to have another one. (We were living with his parents.) I'm an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- no disclaimers, either, I believe in the doctrines of my church with all my heart. The official stance of my church on abortion is No, but with exceptions: namely in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. I feel that is a good place to stand and I'll tell you why.

For starters, I believe that one of the primary purposes of life, in the grand scheme of things, is to gain a body. I don't know when the spirit enters the body. We can all agree that there is a spirit in the body when the baby is born (breath of life and all that), but quite simply we do not know at which point that spirit enters. Now, believing in a just God as I do, I don't think that if you have a body "under construction," as it were, and that body is aborted, that you're really out anything; God will put you in another body. You're not going to lose your shot just because your would-be mother decided that, for whatever reason, she didn't want a child.

Now on to the mother-to-be. I believe, ignorant as we all are of the moment the spirit enters the body -- again, we simply *cannot* know -- that it is simply wrong to declaim them all as murderers. A murder is when, after a spirit enters a body, that body is killed on purpose -- through either active means or neglect -- by someone else, knowingly and maliciously, thereby artificially shortening the life of that person. Considering what I have already said about my beliefs concerning the spirit and the body, I do not consider abortion murder.

That does not mean, however, that I think it's perfectly okay. Whether there's a spirit in that body at the time or not, if you let it alone there certainly will be, and treating a fetus with casual disregard is not that far away from treating other people with that same casual disregard. What's more is that it truly is a matter of choice. If you are a woman, you know that having unprotected sex could get you pregnant. You know that even protected sex can get you pregnant, though at a much lower rate. I firmly believe that you make your choice when you get into bed with someone. Some women might whine and cry about how it isn't fair that men don't have such far-reaching consequences for sex; to them I say tough. Life isn't fair.

(I personally think that sex itself is treated far too casually in our society. Yes, it certainly feels good, and a physical relationship is very important (though I would argue it ought to be kept within the confines of marriage), but it's also the means of perpetuating the human race and therefore ought not be treated nearly as lightly as it is. Sex rant over; back to my point.)

If you're pregnant, odds are good that you made a choice that led to that pregnancy. This is where the rape/incest exceptions come in -- because those women did *not* choose to have sex, and did *not* choose to risk pregnancy. Some choose to have the baby anyway. More power to them. I'm not sure what I'd do in either instance. In the case of terminating a pregnancy to save the mother's life, again, I see that as a valid exception. She can try again for a baby when/if she gets healthy again. I don't think the spirit that would have gone into that body has any harsher penalty than having to wait a bit longer to get here.

It is for these reasons that I do not condemn Gov. Palin for not applying an abortion litmus test to those she hangs around with or appoints to various positions. So much of the abortion debate is centered on belief, and I know that I've been scorned enough for my beliefs that I'm not going to condemn other people for theirs. It's not that I don't want to persuade people into my way of thinking; it's just that I won't be rude about it. That said, I do think that late-term abortions are, with modern technology, completely unnecessary and completely heinous. I think that letting a "born-alive" baby die *is* murder, and is reprehensible. My sister and her husband are one of thousands of couples who can't have their own children; if you get that far along and decide that you simply can't handle a child, there are people lined up who would *love* to take that baby off your hands and give it a good home and a family.

Oh, and incidentally, I will likely have a tubal litigation at some point in my life. My son was born c-section, and, for reasons I won't go into here, it's likely that any other children I have will also have to be c-section. There are only so many of those a person can have. I think it's marvellous that we live in a day and age where, after my last child is born, I won't have to choose between maintaining my physical relationship with my husband and, potentially, staying alive.

Also, Carla, even though I wouldn't know you from Eve, I am glad that you're healing/healed. I wish you well on your journey to peace. May we all find it.

Posted by: angela at January 17, 2010 1:21 AM


I find it incredibly horrifying and disgusting that so many feel that abortion should be compared to murder. Not every pregnancy is due to negligence on the young womans part. Many are due to rape, yet they should be responsibile for bringing this bastard child into the world? No. abortion will NEVER be illegal. You people make me sick.

Posted by: sarah at January 17, 2010 2:26 PM


Sarah, why shouldn't abortion be compared to murder? Both involve killing a human being.

The way a child was conceived does not affect the fact that that child is a human being with human dignity and worth.

The children conceived of rape are no less human than those conceived of love, and no less deserving of the basic human right to life.

It makes me sick that you would refer to such children as "bastards."

Their fathers performed an act of unspeakable evil. That doesn't mean that they should suffer the punishment of death.

Posted by: Lauren at January 17, 2010 2:38 PM


Sarah,
Does Rebecca Kiessling make you sick? She was conceived in a rape. A "bastard child" I guess is how you describe her, which sickens me.

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 17, 2010 3:25 PM


1. "When a woman gives birth, she does something that should be taken for granted, that should not even merit comment, that is something that just should happen, but the fact that there's a choice erodes that understanding. This headline reads to me like 'I'm glad we didn't murder two people.'"

Ugh, disgusting. I'm not even going to unpack how sexist this statement is. Go pray for all the sad aborted embryos winging their way around heaven. What a waste of breath.

2. I dislike Sarah Palin mostly because she's controlling and manipulative, and has carefully engineered the image of a perfect little family, using her kids like two theater props. To say that "pro-aborts" hate it when women choose life is to imply that we hate pregnancy and birth. What a stupid statement.

3. Rebecca Kiessling is profoundly selfish, childish, and suffers from selective hearing. In her myopic worldview, all pro-choicers would, invariably, prefer that she had been aborted. Um, no. "Choice" becomes tantamount in rape cases because raising a child conceived of rape can have devastating emotional consequences for the mother (see Jonathan Torgovnik's photo journalism on the subject: http://www.slate.com/id/2219840/). Abortion can allow a rape victim to regain control of her life, JUST AS deciding to bring the pregnancy to term can also be empowering. If abortion is legal, either option represents a viable choice--the reclamation of control--for the rape survivor.

Posted by: Megan at January 17, 2010 4:39 PM


Was Megan banned?

Posted by: Lauren at January 17, 2010 6:39 PM


Lauren,
No Megan wasn't banned.

Angela,
Thank you. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 17, 2010 8:14 PM


Hmm, what about my comment warranted such harsh censorship? Maybe the idea that privileging an embryo over its mother is absolutely absurd? Constraining a woman's decision-making after a rape is abhorrent. The stigma of raising a child conceived through rape is real, but eliminating abortion as an option won't solve the problem (and many rape survivors do choose to keep the pregnancy: www.medhelp.org/nihlib/GF-617.html).

Bans on abortion hurt women, particularly in cases of rape and incest:
womensphere.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/nicaraguas-ban-on-abortion-compels-rape-and-incest-victims-to-give-birth/

www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/08/29/nicaragua-blanket-ban-abortion-harms-women

Thank God for Plan B.

Posted by: Megan at January 17, 2010 10:04 PM


How is protecting both of their lives privileging one over the other? I'm pretty sure that'd be considered more like equal treatment, which would make sense considering they're both members of the human species.

Women can make all kinds of decisions, but in every other instance but abortion, if the decision is to kill their child, there will usually be some legal repercussions. Let's have a little consistency in our legal system here. (although I personally don't oppose Plan B so that a woman wouldn't be able to make that choice. I disagree with those individuals here who insist that Plan B IS making that choice, but I do understand why they personally wouldn't administer it)

Wow...you mean...right when a women's lib upstart takes the reigns and AI codifies its support of abortion on its books, they JUST HAPPEN to come out with disturbing numbers about what a lack of abortion access is doing in a nation already on the low-end of the scale? REALLY?! I mean...pro-choicers would never LIE to us about these things, ever, right? Folks like Dr. Bernard Nathanson would never lie, right?

Whatever. I love how the feminist policy about rape is "Get an abortion and STFU about it." HOW EMPOWERING. Who wants to prosecute criminals for rape anyway? It's not like that will solve the prob-oh...wait...

Posted by: xalisae at January 18, 2010 7:54 AM


Oh, and this just GETS ME.

". Rebecca Kiessling is profoundly selfish, childish..."

Yeah...wanting yourself and others like you to live is selfish and childish...BUT KILLING YOUR BABY BECAUSE YOU WANTED A DEGREE IS TOTALLY NOT, OK?!

You are the biggest insane hypocrite I've ever seen.

Posted by: xalisae at January 18, 2010 8:04 AM


Harsh censorship?? Try tired of your posts, Megs.
I deleted it in my frustration with your comments. That's all. I put it back up. All of your hateful, vile words are there. Don't worry your pretty little head about that.

I see this going one of three ways.

1. You start to calm down a tad and post more rational, intelligent, thoughtful comments. You actually converse with others here and learn a little bit of self control before you hit the post button.
2. You continue to spew your ugliness with your links that support killing as THE BEST THING since sliced bread. You will eventually start just cursing, and coming here only to incite others. Your posts will be deleted and then you will be banned.
3. Other commenters ignore the troll and you eventually just stop commenting.

Thank God for the Mod Squad!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 18, 2010 8:45 AM


Rape is a horrific crime against a woman. Horrifying!! It is a trauma. It needs to be dealt with by professionals.
Abortion does not HEAL rape. It compounds the pain of the rape. Abortion is its own trauma.
Megs,
I know women who have been raped and aborted and suffered horribly knowing that their child was sacrificed in order to "help" them deal with the rape. It did not. It cannot.
I also know women who were raped and let that child(THEIR CHILD)live. They have never regretted having that baby. The gift of life was a miracle to them that resulted from something so horrifying.

Please post something snarky. I'm bored.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 18, 2010 8:59 AM


"Get an abortion and STFU about it."

Um, no. Again, selective hearing. What sparked the anti-rape movement (and a new, victim-centered definition of rape?) Oh wait, women's lib. Hmm...
Oh, and the stories of back-alley abortions in Nicaragua are totally fabricated. Access to abortion is a silly first-world feminist notion! Pre-teen victims of incest would invariably carry their uncle's children to term if only the pro-choice movement would just back off! And these women love being denied necessary prenatal care under a regime that views any medical intrusion to be a potential harm to the fetus. Gosh, that's woman-centered care right there. Oh, and let's champion women's rights by invoking abortion porn superstar, Bernard Nathanson...see how horrible abortion is! Wait a minute, just let me get out that suction tube...

Anti-abortion policies don't help women, and for all the fetuses they "save," they end up harming just as many, too, by subordinating in importance the mother's health. Also, you're all missing the point. Abortion isn't a panacea, but rape victims especially should have all options availed to them. And observations made at pro-life rally's aren't exactly samples representative of the female population in the US. I've spoken to rape victims who view their abortions as a necessary way to reclaim control over their bodies (yes, by aborting "their" children), just as there are women who willingly bear children conceived of rape. Propagating discourses of false consciousness don't do much to empower women.

Posted by: Megan at January 18, 2010 10:42 AM


"Access to abortion is a silly first-world feminist notion!"

It is when it's not what these women really need. "Oh hey...we know you really need access to psychological services and legal justice through prosecution of your attacker...but we got you this dead baby instead!" Not that necessity for access to abortion in the FIRST world wasn't also fabricated. They said so themselves. I guess that's why you apparently hate Dr. Nathanson so much. Giving away all your side's dirty little secrets.

Exactly which pro-life poster here as advocated a LACK of prenatal care for women? Just because they (might?) do it that way down there doesn't make it right. I sure remember my mom telling me about the days before Roe when grandma couldn't get prenatal care because it might...damage...the fetus...Huh? You know that never happened, and you know that never WOULD happen.

Posted by: xalisae at January 18, 2010 1:25 PM


Megan,

"Propagating discourses of false consciousness don't do much to empower women."

So when it comes down to it, obviously abortion is about power of one person over the other. Not compassion, not love.

"Abortion isn't a panacea"

I agree with you there. It certainly isn't.
(From Wiki): "The panacea (pronounced /pænəˈsiːə/), named after the Greek goddess of healing, Panacea, also known as panchrest, was supposed to be a remedy that would cure all diseases and prolong life indefinitely."

Posted by: Janet at January 18, 2010 1:29 PM


Human Rights Watch:

"Both doctors and women attributed the delays in treatment and seeking treatment to the ban [on abortion] because of apprehension about violating the law. The ban makes women and girls with no economic resources especially vulnerable to unsafe abortion practices...From comments made by the doctors at the time, Morales believes her daughter was left untreated because doctors were reluctant to treat a pregnancy-related emergency for fear that they might be accused of providing therapeutic abortions." (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/08/29/nicaragua-blanket-ban-abortion-harms-women)

This is the way they "do it down there," xalisae, yet despite horrific outcomes, these unsafe practices stem from the same "pro-life" ideology you espouse. Now, perhaps this was Oliver speaking, but I do recall somebody in this forum arguing that pregnant women shouldn't take medication that could, potentially, compromise the fetus' health (like antidepressants). The gist of the argument: pregnant women should just "suck it up" during the pregnancy for the sake of the fetus. That doesn't sound very woman-centered to me, and it also smacks of your particularly lethal brand of fatalism: "life happens, adapt to it."

The pro-choice stance seems pretty logical, despite cries about slippery slopes and whatnot: inside womb, no right to life, outside womb, right to life. There doesn't seem to be much room for confusion here.

Posted by: Megan at January 18, 2010 2:36 PM


Megan the key words there are "Morales believes "

Anything at all to back up this belief?

Posted by: Lauren at January 18, 2010 3:54 PM


Megan the key words there are "Morales believes "

Anything at all to back up this belief?

Megan says "inside womb, no right to life, outside womb, right to life. There doesn't seem to be much room for confusion here. "

Why?

We know what you claim, your job is to tell us why this claim is valid. Simply restating the claim doesn't fulfil this mandate.

Posted by: Lauren at January 18, 2010 3:56 PM


Megan further says " do recall somebody in this forum arguing that pregnant women shouldn't take medication that could, potentially, compromise the fetus' health (like antidepressants)."

No, Megan. Not like antidepressants. We were talking about women taking drugs like thalidomide, that are documented to cause significant birth defects. Antidepressants do not fall into this catagory. Your memory is faulty.

"The gist of the argument: pregnant women should just "suck it up" during the pregnancy for the sake of the fetus."

No, Megan. The gist of the argumet is that a balance must be found between the needs of the mother and the needs of the child. Doctors must carefully weigh the cost and benefit of any given treatment on both parties.

"That doesn't sound very woman-centered to me, and it also smacks of your particularly lethal brand of fatalism: "life happens, adapt to it.""

It is both women and child centered. Unlike you, we realize that two lives are involved during a pregnancy. No one is saying a pregnant woman shouldn't receive care for a medical issue, just that such care should be administered in such a way that takes the child into account as well.

Please though, continue to throw around straw men. It's must easier than responding to our actual arguments.


Posted by: Lauren at January 18, 2010 4:04 PM


"...inside womb, no right to life, outside womb, right to life."

LOL, WUT?

Megan, please tell me HOW that is logical? "In my house, I have the right to shoot my kids in the head, but if they wander outside, nope, I can't do it." Please tell me how WHERE your children are affects what or who or whatever it is that gives you the right to kill them. Please. I'm not confused about what you are stating in your position, just that your position is utterly insane on its face.

And, your source REEEEEEALLLY needs a fact-checker, because I found this gem of a paragraph on their site:

"Abortion is a highly emotional subject and one that excites deeply held opinions. However, equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right. Where abortion is safe and legal, no one is forced to have one. Where abortion is illegal and unsafe, women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term or suffer serious health consequences and even death. Approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are attributable to unsafe abortion—between 68,000 and 78,000 deaths annually."

HELLO, DOES THE WORD "CHINA" DO ANYTHING FOR YOU?! When you look at abortion pictures through the rose-colored abortion glasses that you and this organization wear, instead of a dismembered baby coming out of the woman, do you see rainbows and kittens?

Posted by: xalisae at January 18, 2010 5:15 PM


1. Ah, I remember: in the thalidomide discussion, Oliver made a particularly incendiary remark about antidepressant use and pregnancy.

2.

Human Rights Watch: "Over Their Dead Bodies: Denial of Access to Emergency Obstetric Care and Therapeutic Abortion in Nicaragua."

"Woman dies after doctors fail to intervene because of new abortion law in Nicaragua," Sophie Arie, 18 November 2007.

McNaughton et al, "Invoking health and human rights to ensure access to legal abortion: the case of a nine-year-old girl from Nicaragua."

Amnesty: "Nicaragua’s abortion ban criminalises doctors and endangers lives of women"

(oh, but human rights organizations are merely handmaidens of the women's lib movement)

These issues are a direct result of anti-abortion policies. Oh, and despite the ban, women still seek abortions (shocker!). Most Nicaraguan women aren't jumping for joy now that the state has affirmed the humanity of their unborn children. Gosh, we need some missionary work in Latin America, stat.

If a woman doesn't want to keep a pregnancy, there is no balance of rights to be weighed. The fetus does not have rights because it needs a woman's body to survive. Location is everything, and denying it implies that your body is nothing more than an incubator for a pregnancy. Women are worth more than that.

Posted by: Megan at January 18, 2010 5:19 PM


Nope, I see a dismembered baby, actually. Teehee.

Posted by: Megan at January 18, 2010 5:21 PM


"Oliver made a particularly incendiary remark about antidepressant use and pregnancy. "

Care to share evidence of this recollection with the rest of the class, Megan?

" The fetus does not have rights because it needs a woman's body to survive."

This is your claim. Where is your argument to back it up?

Posted by: Lauren at January 18, 2010 6:27 PM