Hello:

I read where Sarah Palin "for a fleeting moment", considered having an abortion. She CHOSE, however, not to have one. But, isn't that a CHOICE she'd TAKE AWAY from everybody else if she gets her way?? I think it is.

Isn't it silly to make a choice, then when you have the power to do so, you'd make choosing a crime?? I think it is.

excon

Wow, I haven't heard about this but if it's true, bye-bye sarah palins popularity. What a hypcrite.
Whether you think abortion is right or wrong, everyone has a right to choose.

Hello shaz:

She said it while speaking at an anti-abortion rally in Indiana on Thursday.

excon

I'm a conservative and even I was terrified at the thought of someone as unqualified as her being vice-president. Nothing is worse than a hypocrite, she wants to ban it for others yet have one herself, just like Tom Delay who wanted to keep the long dead Terri Shiavo on life-support after 14 years yet pulled the plug on his father after 6 months. Both of them make me sick.

Thanks excon

And that is even more disturbing

Yeah sometimes I want to kill someone but I chose not to. Humans are not perfect . If you want me to bore you with scripture I can show where Jesus the man had doubt and indeed was tempted.
She also said that when babies get human rights is not above her pay grade. I guess you missed that part.
But good news . You can watch the whole speech here
Alaska Politics Blog : Palin Indiana speech | adn.com (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/140621)

It is great !

Here is her exact words
"There, just for a fleeting moment, I thought, I knew, nobody knows me here. Nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy. It could be easy to think maybe of trying to change the circumstances. No one would know. No one would ever know."
Of course she didn't do it because she KNEW it was WRONG.I think I can give her a pass for a fleeting thought under very anguishing circumstances.I am sure God forgives her for her moment of weakness. We call that redemption.

Michael Steele introduced her .On a side note ,but very relevant ,Michael Steele's mom also had a "choice " to make .She also chose life ,and then knowing she could not support him put him up for adoption rather than having him offed .

Now knowing that the child would be born with Downs probably made the temptation all the more attractive. But Palin reiterated in her address that
"Trig . . . is our gift from God. He's proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that every innocent life does have purpose and there is not an accident. And I'm going to choose the Creator's idea of perfection over society's definition of perfection any day."

Of course she didn't do it because she KNEW it was WRONG. I think I can give her a pass for a fleeting thought under very anguishing circumstances.Hello again, tom:

It was WRONG for HER, given her beliefs, and isn't it great that she had the choice? Besides, I don't condemn her for her fleeting thought. It's quite natural, after all. I condemn her for supporting law that would demonize others for having that same thought.

excon

Like I said I sometimes have that fleeting thought to hit someone with a brick . Should I have that choice ? Nahhh .You don't think I should have that choice either .

I sometimes have that fleeting thought to hit someone with a brick . Should I have that choice ? Hello tom:

In our society, we balance the rights of one person against another. If this guy was assaulting you, YES, you have a right to hit him with a brick.

In matters of abortion, when balancing the rights (or lack thereof) of the unborn against the rights of the mother, our society has decided for the mother.

On balance, I think society is right. Sarah Palin had the right to choose, and she did. Good for her. You should put yourself in HER shoes instead of your mythical brick thrower. Your analogy does reveal your misogynistic propensities, however.

excon

Wow, I haven't heard about this but if it's true, bye-bye sarah palins popularity. What a hypcrite.
Whether you think abortion is right or wrong, everyone has a right to choose.

Everyone? Did anyone ever ask the baby if it wanted an abortion?

And just how does her choice make Palin a hypocrite?

So far, all the left has had to offer against Sarah Palin are nit picking, and outright lies.

The fact that she is still taking flak proves how much the left fears her. From all the invective, one would think that she had the top spot on the ticket. I heard someone saying that she lost to Obama! No, McCain lost because he was a weak candidate, and would have come off even worse without Palin on the ticket.

Hello:

I read where Sarah Palin "for a fleeting moment", considered having an abortion. She CHOSE, however, not to have one. But, isn't that a CHOICE she'd TAKE AWAY from everybody else if she gets her way???? I think it is.

Isn't it silly to make a choice, then when you have the power to do so, you'd make choosing a crime??? I think it is.

excon


Palin is a social conservative, she thought for a fleeting moment about a choice, but she DID what was right, she CHOSE LIFE NOT DEATH.

She talks the talk and walks the walk.

The ultimate hypocrisy is from those who are ALIVE by the choice of their mothers, yet think it okay that those UNBORN, THAT DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, don't have a right to live.:mad:



G&P

Everyone? Did anyone ever ask the baby if it wanted an abortion?




So you would rather bring an unwanted child into the world with it's mother hating it because she never wanted it and abusing it physically and emotionally than terminating a pregnancy when the baby hasn't developed far enough to have any thoughts or feel pain?

I would thank GOODNESS that most of our "thoughts" don't actually get played out.

Gee, I thought it was pretty much perfect. Human, emotional, heartfelt, honest. Exactly what anyone considering an abortion should hear. It showed the doubts and the triumph which led to a blessing... "my heart overflowed with joy."

I know there's this bizarre abortion pride movement now but really, can anyone honestly say "my heart overflowed with joy" at terminating a pregnancy? And it's not exactly "supporting law that would demonize others for having that same thought." Has someone proposed making the thought illegal? Well, Obama may be headed that way for targeting all those terrorist conservatives who may think differently than he, but I know of no conservative movement toward the thought police.

It's not rocket science ex, as she said "children are meant as perfect gifts, not burdens." I much rather favor a law that protects that gift than one that says children are disposable.

So you would rather bring an unwanted child into the world with it's mother hating it because she never wanted it and abusing it physically and emotionally than terminating a pregnancy when the baby hasn't developed far enough to have any thoughts or feel pain?

You ever hear of adoption?

And just how do you know at what point the baby can feel pain? Even murders are given pain medication before lethal injection. Babies are not! That's barbaric.

And just how do you know at what point the baby can feel pain? Even murders are given pain medication before lethal injection. Babies are not! That's barbaric.

I agree it is barbaric. Abortion is a controversial topic.

In my opinion: abortion before it's heart or any other vital organs are developed is "OK", but that only gives you less of a month window. In the first month they grow arms, legs, lungs and a heart- I believe it can now feel SOMETHING.

I think the most barbaric abortions of all are Late-Term Abortions: now those SHOULD be illegal. God I'm getting sick of even thinking about it.

Sarah

What happened to choice and the freedom to choose?

It has been proven that a blob of cells does not feel pain. This is not a termination of life, it's a termination of potential life. If it cannot live outside of the uterus, then it isn't a human being, yet.

I myself would never have an abortion, but I do believe that everyone has the right to choose.

Now, if a woman is using abortion as a form of birth control, then no, that isn't right, should be illegal. But accidents do happen, and abortion should be an option, available to anyone.

I'm female, my body is my own, and what goes on with my body is my choice and only my choice. If I choose not to have a child, not to carry a child to term, then that is my choice and I don't think anyone has the right to take that choice away from me or anyone else.

That's all I have to say.

What happened to choice and the freedom to choose?

It has been proven that a blob of cells does not feel pain. This is not a termination of life, it's a termination of potential life. If it cannot live outside of the uterus, then it isn't a human being, yet.

That's the whole problem, we've dumbed down human life to a "blob of cells." Funny how the evolutionists want us to think life began as something like a "blob of cells" but when it comes to abortion that "blob of cells" isn't life, it's only "potential life." It's either alive or it isn't, no?

That's the whole problem, we've dumbed down human life to a "blob of cells." Funny how the evolutionists want us to think life began as something like a "blob of cells" but when it comes to abortion that "blob of cells" isn't life, it's only "potential life." It's either alive or it isn't, no?

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being. It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk. A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.

By the time a women knows she's pregnant the baby has grown well beyond a "blob of cells" .

Ex ; I was not describing self defense. The only comparison would be premeditated taking of life.

As for society deciding on abortion goes ;there would've been no need for a judiciary coup if society had indeed decided on it.

I plead guilty to mysogeny if it means I would have to agree to the premise that a women can choose to snuff out a most innocent human life.

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being. It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk. A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.

I completely agree with your way of thinking Alty.

galveston - yes I have heard of adoption but you would be surprised how many mothers who don't want their children keep them anyway.

There is no point arguing about it on here as everyone is going to have a different opinion.

excon was just saying that Sarah Palin was being a hypocrite by saying that she had thought about abortion when she is basically a spokesperson for an anti-abortion campaign.

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

Sorry alt, it's either alive or it isn't.


At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being.

This is week 4, it has a heart, a liver, a brain, eyes and limbs are forming:

http://www.wpclinic.org/image/photos/04weeks500x379.jpg


It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

Its heart is beating 22 days after conception, how can it not be alive?


Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk. A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Exactly, which is why we have laws to protect the most helpless... except when it comes to the unborn. The womb should be the ultimate safe haven. There, I said it, I must be a terrorist.


Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.

It's even odder how evolutionists abandon them when they're inconvenient. If they can't believe their own arguments just what do they believe?

It has the potential for life, it's not human yet. Yes, it's a blob of cells, that, if left to grow for 9 months, inside the uterus of a woman, will turn into a human, if all goes well.

At first it has no arms, legs, heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, toes, ears, nothing that would make it even resemble a human being. It cannot be sustained outside of a women, so how can it be alive?

A blob of cells cannot do any of those things, in fact, if exposed to the air outside of the uterus, if taken out of it's environment, it will cease to exist.

Funny how the creationists spout evolutionist theories when they want their way.


The argument that only
Human beings are self sustaining, they live, breath, walk, talk. falls flat when you realize that a lot of folks, especially in the nursing homes, cannot walk or rely on other humans or tubes to feed them. Would you suggest that these folks are "abortable?"

How about if a person is not "self sustaning" because they stopped breathing and or their heart stopped working? Would you suggest that people, emergencyservices, etc. NEVER do cpr or try to resussitate these folks?

As to POTENTIAL; children are potential adults, do we value their life any less?
In the sports world, a lot of high draft picks are based on "potential" some of which are never to be realized, ;) but where there is POTENTIAL there is also HOPE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would suggest to women, since they will ultimately carry the pregnancy and be primarily responsible for raising the child [ because men often times just run away :mad: ], that after an ill advised and or unprotected tryst, ask their doctor / nurse/ pharmacist for extra birthcontrol pills the next day, to prevent conception.




G&P

She would like to prevent someone from doing something she has decided is wrong. She knows first hand about being faced with a medical reason for making that choice, but she has convinced herself abortion is wrong SO naturally she'd make it illegal (if she could) so no other woman could make the wrong choice.

I'm a pro choice person myself but I can see her reasoning. If she really believes abortion is wrong and she actually had the thought of having one, she knows how close she came to doing it, how easy it would be to do what she believes is the wrong thing; why, she'd be doing everyone a favor by making abortion illegal. NOT.

She would like to prevent someone from doing something she has decided is wrong. She knows first hand about being faced with a medical reason for making that choice, but she has convinced herself abortion is wrong SO naturally she'd make it illegal (if she could) so no other woman could make the wrong choice.

I'm a pro choice person myself but I can see her reasoning. If she really believes abortion is wrong and she actually had the thought of having one, she knows how close she came to doing it, how easy it would be to do what she believes is the wrong thing; why, she'd be doing everyone a favor by making abortion illegal. NOT.

I also am pro choice. It is just that I differ with you as to when the choice should be made. I believe she should make her choice BEFORE intercourse.

Hello again, tom:

It was WRONG for HER, given her beliefs, and isn't it great that she had the choice? Besides, I don't condemn her for her fleeting thought. It's quite natural, after all. I condemn her for supporting law that would demonize others for having that same thought.

excon

Again, that's a cop-out response.

Wrong is wrong. It isn't wrong for some and right for others.

As far as Palin's so-called hipocracy, I don't think so.

So she once thought fleetingly about having an abortion. I once thought fleetingly about committing murder. So what. That doesn't constitute being hypocritical. If she had said ONE thing and done ANOTHER... that would be different. If she had had the abortion and then wanted to prevent others from having one, THAT would be hypocritical.

Nor did she "make a choice that she is denying others". She never made a choice. She simply did what was right. No "choice" was required.

Is a defense attorney a hypocrite because he defends murderers but "chooses" not to be a murderer himself? Is a prosecutor a hypocrite because he was once so angry at someone he contemplated murder for a fleeting second but "chose" not to? That's the logic you are using.

It's a ridiculous argument.

Anything to bash Palin. You lefties must be pretty scared of her if you're still going after her 5 months after she lost the election. Afraid that she might be back on the national scene in 2012?

Elliot