PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Bristol Palin's 'choice'


Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 06:15 PM
Just wanted to weigh in on a line of thought that I've heard Maher and Stewart, among others, make. And the seriousness of their presentation makes it appear that they're not being humorous about it.

It's that it's hypocritical for the Palins to applaud their daughter's choice to keep her baby, yet espouse the pro-life position as it would take that choice from others.

For the life of me I cannot see any distinction between this issue, and an analogous position regarding segregation.

If, back in the Jim Crow days, you had a relative who ran his place of business without regards to race, would you be a hypocrite if you applauded that stance, AND supported the Civil Rights Act? Wasn't the Civil Rights Act an 'anti-choice' act, in that it stopped proprietors from operating their private place of business by the dictates of their own heart?

The reason to applaud Bristol's decision is that she recognized the sanctity of life DESPITE not being constrained by law to do so. When a wrong exists in the world, resisting that wrong has no logical connection to welcoming the right of those who choose wrong to do so with impugnity.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:18 PM
Just wanted to weigh in on a line of thought that I've heard Maher and Stewart, among others, make. And the seriousness of their presentation makes it appear that they're not being humorous about it.

It's that it's hypocritical for the Palins to applaud their daughter's choice to keep her baby, yet espouse the pro-life position as it would take that choice from others.

For the life of me I cannot see any distinction between this issue, and an analogous position regarding segregation.

If, back in the Jim Crow days, you had a relative who ran his place of business without regards to race, would you be a hypocrite if you applauded that stance, AND supported the Civil Rights Act? Wasn't the Civil Rights Act an 'anti-choice' act, in that it stopped proprietors from operating their private place of business by the dictates of their own heart?

The reason to applaud Bristol's decision is that she recognized the sanctity of life DESPITE not being constrained by law to do so. When a wrong exists in the world, resisting that wrong has no logical connection to welcoming the right of those who choose wrong to do so with impugnity.

What makes you think she had any choice in the matter?

Mecca
09-10-2008, 06:20 PM
What makes you think she had any choice in the matter?

That's what I was thinking.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:21 PM
For the record, I do love the implicit connection with pro-life=right and good and pro-choice=bad throughout your thread starter. It's like your own little push poll.

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 06:26 PM
For the record, I do love the implicit connection with pro-life=right and good and pro-choice=bad throughout your thread starter. It's like your own little push poll.

It's pretty much implicit in the discussion of the dynamics at play here.

Pro-life people are as certain of the sanctity of life as civil rights pioneers were of the equality of man. Do you think there's still a rational debate regarding segregation in private establishments, or is there an implicit connection between segregation=bad and equality=good?

Ultra Peanut
09-10-2008, 06:29 PM
Pro-life people are as certain of the sanctity of life as civil rights pioneers were of the equality of man.And creationists are as certain that God created the Earth over the course of 7 days around 6,000 years ago. That does not make "teaching the controversy" analogous to desegregation.

The reason to applaud Bristol's decision is that she recognized the sanctity of life DESPITE not being constrained by law to do so.Even if she did decide to keep the baby of her own volition, it's not an issue of morality. A girl surrounded by a support system has certain luxuries that young girls in less fortunate circumstances do not have; these allow her to deal with unexpected variables in very different ways, and provide options that aren't open to others.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:29 PM
It's pretty much implicit in the discussion of the dynamics at play here.

Pro-life people are as certain of the sanctity of life as civil rights pioneers were of the equality of man. Do you think there's still a rational debate regarding segregation in private establishments, or is there an implicit connection between segregation=bad and equality=good?

Rhetorically, I can see why you want to conflate the two, but it doesn't change the fact that they are dissimilar areas of policy (from a Pro-choice standpoint) or symmetrical (from a pro-life standpoint). Nor will the existence of this thread move the marker one way or the other, as people are so entrenched in their positions on this matter that it is essentially the Forlorn Hope of political debates.

alnorth
09-10-2008, 06:34 PM
This one is easy to answer.

Lets hypothetically assume bank robbery was legal, but your family believed it was wrong. You are also part of a movement trying to make bank robbery a crime, but for now, your kid could legally do it if they wanted. You raised them to think bank robbery was wrong, and when their friends asked them to come along the next heist, they said no. You are happy and proudly tell others.

That doesnt mean they should stop trying to outlaw bank robbery to take that choice away from his friends. Now, I know abortion isnt bank robbery and we have an honest debate over whether it should or shouldnt be wrong, but if you presume for your family that abortion is morally wrong and should not be an option at all, then the above scenario fits.

J Diddy
09-10-2008, 06:34 PM
Rhetorically, I can see why you want to conflate the two, but it doesn't change the fact that they are dissimilar areas of policy (from a Pro-choice standpoint) or symmetrical (from a pro-life standpoint). Nor will the existence of this thread move the marker one way or the other, as people are so entrenched in their positions on this matter that it is essentially the Forlorn Hope of political debates.

The entire realm of DC is the Forlorn Hope of political debates

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:35 PM
This one is easy to answer.

Lets hypothetically assume bank robbery was legal, but your family believed it was wrong. You are also part of a movement trying to make bank robbery a crime, but for now, your kid could legally do it if they wanted. You raised them to think bank robbery was wrong, and when their friends asked them to come along the next heist, they said no. You are happy and proudly tell others.

That doesnt mean they should stop trying to outlaw bank robbery to take that choice away from his friends. Now, I know abortion isnt bank robbery and we have an honest debate over whether it should or shouldnt be wrong, but if you presume for your family that abortion is morally wrong and should not be an option at all, then the above scenario fits.

Do you really think anyone doesn't see through the underlying values that you've ascribed to both positions here?

Ultra Peanut
09-10-2008, 06:38 PM
Now, I know abortion isnt bank robberyI did not know that.

alnorth
09-10-2008, 06:39 PM
Do you really think anyone doesn't see through the underlying values that you've ascribed to both positions here?

I personally am apathetic about abortion. Legal, not legal, I dont care enough to want to do anything about it.

I was going to use "murder", but I wanted to avoid exactly your reaction. Perhaps I should have used something really stupid like "having pet birds"?

Anyway, your comment doesnt change the fact that "being happy that your kid didnt do something legal but immoral" and "wanting to make that act illegal" are not mutually exclusive.

alnorth
09-10-2008, 06:40 PM
I did not know that.

Yep, I definitely should have used something utterly stupid like "having pet birds".

Ultra Peanut
09-10-2008, 06:42 PM
People have strong beliefs about lots of ethereal moral issues, but all of the conviction in the world does not equal a worthwhile argument.

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 06:43 PM
Rhetorically, I can see why you want to conflate the two, but it doesn't change the fact that they are dissimilar areas of policy (from a Pro-choice standpoint) or symmetrical (from a pro-life standpoint). Nor will the existence of this thread move the marker one way or the other, as people are so entrenched in their positions on this matter that it is essentially the Forlorn Hope of political debates.

I'm not trying to turn the tide on the entire issue of abortion, but simply to make the case that applauding the 'choice' of life does not make the pro-life position hypocritical.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:43 PM
Yep, I definitely should have used something utterly stupid like "having pet birds".

You should have used something innocuous.

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 06:46 PM
Anyway, your comment doesnt change the fact that "being happy that your kid didnt do something legal but immoral" and "wanting to make that act illegal" are not mutually exclusive.
That


And again, for those who would hinge their righteous anger on straw men, this is not the argument that abortion is the ending of a distinct life, but that those who are pro-life think it is.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:47 PM
I'm not trying to turn the tide on the entire issue of abortion, but simply to make the case that applauding the 'choice' of life does not make the pro-life position hypocritical.

I think that is something that is more arguable. The OP is laden with a lot of implicit values that make the pro-choice side look devilish if they don't support, which is why I made my push poll analogy.

Tangentially, I don't understand why Maher or Stewart are really wasting time with this, especially Maher who wants to talk about her not pregancy and its veracity.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:49 PM
That


And again, for those who would hinge their righteous anger on straw men, this is not the argument that abortion is the ending of a distinct life, but that those who are pro-life think it is.

I don't think that most on the pro-choice side take umbrage with the fact that those who are "pro-life" value human life. What they take umbrage with are the definitions of life as well as the removal of agency from the pregnant woman. Contrarily, the PL crowd will say that agency is removed from the fetus, which is human, to which the pro-choice crowd will say....

ad infinitum

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 06:50 PM
I think that is something that is more arguable. The OP is laden with a lot of implicit values that make the pro-choice side look devilish if they don't support, which is why I made my push poll analogy.

Tangentially, I don't understand why Maher or Stewart are really wasting time with this, especially Maher who wants to talk about her not pregancy and its veracity.


Mostly, this stuck in my mind because Stewart appeared on the verge of visible rage on the issue. Almost as if he thought the Palins were actually applauding the standard that 'their daughter gets to choose because she's special, but normal people don't get to choose' when that bears NO resemblance to the dynamics herein.

NewChief
09-10-2008, 06:51 PM
I don't get it too much, either. The Dems need to be nailing Palin on the issues. Let the muckrakers keep digging up dirt on her, and if something worthy comes up then nail her with it. Otherwise, just keep hitting home the earmark hypocrisy as well as her ultraconservative agenda.

Silock
09-10-2008, 06:52 PM
This thread is awesome, because we will DEFINITELY settle the pro-life versus pro-choice debate here on CP.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 06:54 PM
Mostly, this stuck in my mind because Stewart appeared on the verge of visible rage on the issue. Almost as if he thought the Palins were actually applauding the standard that 'their daughter gets to choose because she's special, but normal people don't get to choose' when that bears NO resemblance to the dynamics herein.

Well, those on Stewart's side of the fence would argue that whether or not she decided to follow through with her pregnancy, the mere fact that she was granted a choice is hypocritical in that her parents would not allow that same choice for others. I think that although many people may agree with a certain course of action, there is a natural revulsion if you were to tell them "I will remove you from choosing a) or b)", even if the vast majority of them would choose a), anyway.

Ahh, ventriloquizing the left. So much fun :fire:

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 06:56 PM
Well, those on Stewart's side of the fence would argue that whether or not she decided to follow through with her pregnancy, the mere fact that she was granted a choice is hypocritical in that her parents would not allow that same choice for others. I think that although many people may agree with a certain course of action, there is a natural revulsion if you were to tell them "I will remove you from choosing a) or b)", even if the vast majority of them would choose a), anyway.

Ahh, ventriloquizing the left. So much fun :fire:

But the Palins didn't give her the choice, 9 white men did 35 years ago.

Ultra Peanut
09-10-2008, 06:58 PM
But the Palins didn't give her the choice, 9 white men did 35 years ago.Good?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 07:00 PM
But the Palins didn't give her the choice, 9 white men did 35 years ago.

I never said that they gave her any choice.

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 07:05 PM
Good?

Wanna weigh in on the potential for prenatal testing for gender confusion?

And that's a question, not a swipe.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 07:07 PM
Wanna weigh in on the potential for prenatal testing for gender confusion?

And that's a question, not a swipe.

Gender theorists see the problem as not necessarily something genetically intrinsic to the person, but rather a problem in which the way that our society transcribes roles onto certain body types.

Ultra Peanut
09-10-2008, 07:12 PM
Wanna weigh in on the potential for prenatal testing for gender confusion?

And that's a question, not a swipe.We don't even know what causes it now (the hormonal wash theory seems promising), so any potential testing would have to be really far off in the future.

And really, if we ever really reach a point where we can detect it, it's less a eugenics issue (which is what you seem to be getting at) and more along the lines of learning how to deal with something that could be an inconvenience rather than a life-ruining problem. Keeping the kid from going through puberty the wrong way and letting them choose which path they would like while developing an understanding that keeps them from ending up ostracized, isolated, and depressed would be an effective way of dealing with things, if I were given a say.

Baby Lee
09-10-2008, 07:14 PM
Ahh, ventriloquizing the left. So much fun :fire:
ROFL ROFL Damn me for posting this before reading my weekly Savage

But Sarah Palin doesn't believe that other girls should be able to make their own decisions. Sarah Palin believes abortion should be illegal in almost every instance—including rape and incest. So Bristol Palin is being celebrated for making a choice that Sarah Palin would like to take away from all other American women. Apparently, today's GOP believes that choice is a special right reserved for the wayward daughters of Republican elected officials.
http://www.avclub.com/content/node/86237

banyon
09-10-2008, 07:48 PM
But the Palins didn't give her the choice, 9 white men did 35 years ago.

It was not 9 white men.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 08:08 PM
BabyLee, you raise an interesting point. I do believe you are on the wrong side, however. But here's a rehash of conversation people - IIRC, you joined in - and me had on the subject of pro-life.

Pro-choice ≠ Pro-abortion

If it does, pro-life cannot mean what you want it to mean in the thread starter. Unless, of course, you are against the death penalty. And if you want to take it further, against killing animals, blowing your nose, etc. Pro-life supporting pro-death or taking part in any destruction of life is, undoubtedly, not "for" life.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 08:11 PM
This thread is awesome, because we will DEFINITELY settle the pro-life versus pro-choice debate here on CP.

I don't know if I admire your position or credit your position with the reason behind the current state of things.

At the very least, it will expose the lies, illogic, and absurdity present in the thread starter and subsequent argument for.

BucEyedPea
09-10-2008, 08:19 PM
If the kid is a minor it's not their choice unless the parents allow that.
Sorry. That's life.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 08:22 PM
If the kid is a minor it's not their choice unless the parents allow that.
Sorry. That's life.

I don't think that's accurate. Though I don't know Alaskan law.

Silock
09-10-2008, 09:03 PM
If the kid is a minor it's not their choice unless the parents allow that.
Sorry. That's life.

No, it's still their choice and their parents don't even get to know, in some cases.

Silock
09-10-2008, 09:07 PM
I don't know if I admire your position or credit your position with the reason behind the current state of things.

At the very least, it will expose the lies, illogic, and absurdity present in the thread starter and subsequent argument for.

The problem is that no one is EVER going to change someone's mind on an issue like this over the internet. The respect is lacking, considering the zero face-to-face time people on both sides.

Changing someone's perceptions requires fully acknowledging the faults of your own argument before you even think about trying to poke holes in the opposition's. It also requires not resorting to ad hominems, being able to back up what you say and having respect for the other person. I think there's a scant handful of people like that on CP, and the rest are just filled with hate and vitriol for any position that isn't theirs. That's not intellectual. It's childish.

And it happens over and over and over and over again with every major issue.

There's just no point in talking about it here. If people want to have a serious discussion about it, it should be done in person and with respect. Otherwise, you just end up with both sides hurling insults at each other.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 09:10 PM
The problem is that no one is EVER going to change someone's mind on an issue like this over the internet. The respect is lacking, considering the zero face-to-face time people on both sides.

Changing someone's perceptions requires fully acknowledging the faults of your own argument before you even think about trying to poke holes in the opposition's. It also requires not resorting to ad hominems, being able to back up what you say and having respect for the other person. I think there's a scant handful of people like that on CP, and the rest are just filled with hate and vitriol for any position that isn't theirs. That's not intellectual. It's childish.

And it happens over and over and over and over again with every major issue.

There's just no point in talking about it here. If people want to have a serious discussion about it, it should be done in person and with respect. Otherwise, you just end up with both sides hurling insults at each other.

I agree, in part.

See, some people will scour the internet and be moved by an argument made without interaction with either party. If for nothing else, it shouldn't be shot down in case one stumbles here.

On the other hand, face to face sometimes creates tension that makes very articulate people inarticulate. Likewise, articulate people can look incompetent via written word. To say one is better than the other is misleading and dishonest.

Ari Chi3fs
09-10-2008, 09:13 PM
Baby Lee Don't Preach.
I'm in trouble deep.
Baby Lee Don't Preach.
I'm on a losing streak.

But, I've made up my mind.
I'm keeping my baby....
oooooo-ooo
Im gonna keep my baby!!!

Silock
09-10-2008, 09:18 PM
I agree, in part.

See, some people will scour the internet and be moved by an argument made without interaction with either party. If for nothing else, it shouldn't be shot down in case one stumbles here.

On the other hand, face to face sometimes creates tension that makes very articulate people inarticulate. Likewise, articulate people can look incompetent via written word. To say one is better than the other is misleading and dishonest.

I think some arguments can certainly be solved over the internet. But not ones like this.

And the face-to-face is more about forcing respect. Even if you're inarticulate, if you're face-to-face there is less of a chance of being mercilessly mocked like happens on the 'net. If you have respect for the person sitting across from you, it doesn't matter how articulate they may or may not be because you will evaluate their argument on the merits of their position and not the way it is phrased.

I have no problem saying that one is better than the other, especially among people that aren't that familiar with each other.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 11:14 PM
Just wanted to weigh in on a line of thought that I've heard Maher and Stewart, among others, make. And the seriousness of their presentation makes it appear that they're not being humorous about it.

It's that it's hypocritical for the Palins to applaud their daughter's choice to keep her baby, yet espouse the pro-life position as it would take that choice from others.

For the life of me I cannot see any distinction between this issue, and an analogous position regarding segregation.

If, back in the Jim Crow days, you had a relative who ran his place of business without regards to race, would you be a hypocrite if you applauded that stance, AND supported the Civil Rights Act? Wasn't the Civil Rights Act an 'anti-choice' act, in that it stopped proprietors from operating their private place of business by the dictates of their own heart?

The reason to applaud Bristol's decision is that she recognized the sanctity of life DESPITE not being constrained by law to do so. When a wrong exists in the world, resisting that wrong has no logical connection to welcoming the right of those who choose wrong to do so with impugnity.

"We the Palins applaud our daughter for making the right decision.

Now, if we could only take office, we'll make that decision for your daughter."

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 12:30 AM
"We the Palins applaud our daughter for making the right decision.

Now, if we could only take office, we'll make that decision for your daughter."

Damn, that's stupid. And below you, Direckshun. Really. :shake:

Logical
09-11-2008, 12:52 AM
Just imagine all the Palin girls can have illegitimate children by the time 8 years in office are over. Then again maybe by then they will relent and be logical and teach the other two daughters about Birth Control

Ultra Peanut
09-11-2008, 01:09 AM
Damn, that's stupid. And below you, Direckshun. Really. :shake:I'm sooooo disappointed in you, Mr. Kotter.

ClevelandBronco
09-11-2008, 01:13 AM
I really don't understand all the hand-wringing over Roe v. Wade. It's crappy law and abortion would still be widely available almost everywhere if the decision were overturned and put back in the hands of the states where it belongs.

EDIT: I'm not going to say that I'm pro-life, because I do blow my nose (what the heck is irish talking about?), but I am anti-abortion.

Ultra Peanut
09-11-2008, 01:20 AM
Q: HOW IS BABBY FORMED? (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 04:22 AM
Wow, from one post to the next
BabyLee, you raise an interesting point. I do believe you are on the wrong side, however.
the lies, illogic, and absurdity present in the thread starter and subsequent argument for.

Seriously, GFY, DiaF, and the remainder of the incideniary internet death and anal intruson advice.

Seriously man, I've given you slack for some time, but you have zero aptitude for analysis, so just stop.

banyon
09-11-2008, 08:10 AM
I really don't understand all the hand-wringing over Roe v. Wade. It's crappy law and abortion would still be widely available almost everywhere if the decision were overturned and put back in the hands of the states where it belongs.

EDIT: I'm not going to say that I'm pro-life, because I do blow my nose (what the heck is irish talking about?), but I am anti-abortion.

You don't think that scheme is a mite impractical?

Garcia Bronco
09-11-2008, 09:56 AM
I support the right to choice, but let's not kid ourselves and act like it's some noble thing. It isn't.

Ultra Peanut
09-11-2008, 10:05 AM
You don't think that scheme is a mite impractical?Hey, it's not THAT hard for poor people to get time off from work and travel hundreds of miles simply because their state decided not to let them exercise control over their own bodies.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 10:50 AM
Wow, from one post to the next



Seriously, GFY, DiaF, and the remainder of the incideniary internet death and anal intruson advice.

Seriously man, I've given you slack for some time, but you have zero aptitude for analysis, so just stop.

Umm, I said you raised a good point. Meaning you relayed the good points of Stewart and the like.

The editorialization on why they are wrong was the part of lies etc. Sorry, but true.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 10:51 AM
Damn, that's stupid. And below you, Direckshun. Really. :shake:

How is that below him? It's a valid argument.

If she is against women having the choice, how can she praise her daughter for the choice?

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 11:03 AM
How is that below him? It's a valid argument.

If she is against women having the choice, how can she praise her daughter for the choice?

Baby Lee already answered this:

The reason to applaud Bristol's decision is that she recognized the sanctity of life DESPITE not being constrained by law to do so.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:05 AM
Baby Lee already answered this:

I don't see how that defeats the underlying politicking coming from Palin. She wants to say "see Pro-Life values through CHOICE" while simultaneously waning to discard such choice.

It has nothing to do with Bristol and everything to do with how she is extracting her talking points from it. Moreover, if she wasn't on a national stage, would she have had an abortion? No one knows, but it's something to keep in mind. Not every daughter has their mom on the Presidential ticket and a blow like your own abortion would kill it.

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 11:11 AM
I don't see how that defeats the underlying politicking coming from Palin. She wants to say "see Pro-Life values through CHOICE" while simultaneously waning to discard such choice.

It has nothing to do with Bristol and everything to do with how she is extracting her talking points from it.

I don't think so. I think Sarah's comments are directed towards her daughter and the issue at hand. She understands her daughter legally has the choice and commends her daughter for being Pro-Life. It's more of a reality stance than anything.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 11:12 AM
How is that below him? It's a valid argument.

If she is against women having the choice, how can she praise her daughter for the choice?

Humans are imperfect; that does not mean we should not aspire for a more virtuous society, though.

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 11:16 AM
Moreover, if she wasn't on a national stage, would she have had an abortion? No one knows, but it's something to keep in mind. Not every daughter has their mom on the Presidential ticket and a blow like your own abortion would kill it.

I can't really argue that other than to say it's pretty disgusting to even go there. I guess if you're pro-choice that means you get to disect the decision someone else makes and not respect the privacy of said decision.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:19 AM
I can't really argue that other than to say it's pretty disgusting to even go there. I guess if you're pro-choice that means you get to disect the decision someone else makes and not respect the privacy of said decision.

It's disgusting to put forth possibilities?

The point is: She wants to applaud the choice her daughter made while simultaneously taking away said choice.

If that happened, she wouldn't be able to applaud the choice...


It's more about the hypocritical nature of Palin's politics than it is about Bristol's decision.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:19 AM
Humans are imperfect; that does not mean we should not aspire for a more virtuous society, though.

What are you saying here?

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 11:24 AM
It's disgusting to put forth possibilities?

The point is: She wants to applaud the choice her daughter made while simultaneously taking away said choice.

If that happened, she wouldn't be able to applaud the choice...


It's more about the hypocritical nature of Palin's politics than it is about Bristol's decision.

I'm saying if you want to be pro-choice you really shouldn't feel the need to disect a woman's decision she made. That's totally contradicting if you think the choice is only up to her.

Sarah Palin is facing reality as it stands and publicly supporting her daughter. Nothing to see here.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:28 AM
I'm saying if you want to be pro-choice you really shouldn't feel the need to disect a woman's decision she made. That's totally contradicting if you think the choice is only up to her.

Sarah Palin is facing reality as it stands and publicly supporting her daughter. Nothing to see here.

I'm not dissecting HER choice, as I've said. I'm dissecting Palin's constant talking point that she's made out of it.

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 11:32 AM
I'm not dissecting HER choice, as I've said. I'm dissecting Palin's constant talking point that she's made out of it.

Sure you did.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:40 AM
Sure you did.

I merely through out the possibility. I never said that's what happened.

And personally, she was past the point of abortion territory 5 months in. Too much time had passed, so the decision came from before she hit the ticket. Which means my possibility is irrelevant anyway.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 11:53 AM
Umm, I said you raised a good point. Meaning you relayed the good points of Stewart and the like.

The editorialization on why they are wrong was the part of lies etc. Sorry, but true.

WTF is the lie? Stewart didn't make a good point, that's the entire point of the thread, that his point was shit. Pure rubbish.

Palin has never said she was glad her daughter HAD a choice. She's said that, in light of the fact that the government gives her that choice, she still made the right decision.

You are increasingly the antithesis of right, if people want to know what's right, take their cue from you and posit the precise opposite. It's like your brain is made of anti-matter, or all your synapses perform inverse functions. It's fascinating really. You could be an episode of Fringe.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 11:56 AM
What are you saying here?

That, though, in our personal endeavors and lives we and our loved ones may fall short of perfection or the ideal, that does not mean we should not set that as our goal.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:57 AM
WTF is the lie? Stewart didn't make a good point, that's the entire point of the thread, that his point was shit. Pure rubbish.

I guess "lie" wouldn't be the best word, but I used three words in / format because I didn't really know the best one to describe it. Stewarts criticism is spot on. Which is why I said I disagree with you in the first post on the subject.

Palin has never said she was glad her daughter HAD a choice. She's said that, in light of the fact that the government gives her that choice, she still made the right decision.

Correct, which is hypocritical to her stance that women shouldn't have choice. In her view, Bristol should have zero choice in the matter. So to applaud it is contradictory to her views.


You are increasingly the antithesis of right, if people want to know what's right, take their cue from you and posit the precise opposite. It's like your brain is made of anti-matter, or all your synapses perform inverse functions. It's fascinating really. You could be an episode of Fringe.
:spock:

I guess. I don't even know what that means. I've already told everyone I'm not really definable politically. Everywhereist is the best description, as coined by ClevelandBronco after I said I'm an everywhere.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:58 AM
That, though, in our personal endeavors and lives we and our loved ones may fall short of perfection or the ideal, that does not mean we should not set that as our goal.

How does this apply in this case?

You have someone applauding the choice their daughter made but wanting in the future to take away the same choice she applauded her for making.

mlyonsd
09-11-2008, 12:00 PM
I merely through out the possibility. I never said that's what happened.

And personally, she was past the point of abortion territory 5 months in. Too much time had passed, so the decision came from before she hit the ticket. Which means my possibility is irrelevant anyway.

Aight. Just say'in. When critiquing someone's choice it kind of goes against the pro-choice concept of it's really the woman's choice IMO.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Aight. Just say'in. When critiquing someone's choice it kind of goes against the pro-choice concept of it's really the woman's choice IMO.

I agree. And in no way do I mean she should have gotten an abortion. I'm merely saying it's hypocritical for someone to applaud the CHOICE yet take the view that the CHOICE shouldn't exist.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 12:03 PM
How does this apply in this case?

You have someone applauding the choice their daughter made but wanting in the future to take away the same choice she applauded her for making.

In a perfect world, abortion would be very rare, in Palin's opinion. Her own daughter's failure to live up to that ideal should not in anyway reflect on what Palin feels we, as a society, should strive for.

It's not about hypocrisy; it's about asking what a virtuous society should strive to be. Some people disagree with Palin, and place unfettered personal freedom and "choice" above making abortion more rare....as a priority in a civilized society. Others would seek a middle ground (me for example.) Reasonable people can disagree; that doesn't make her a "hypocrite" except to myopic partisan ideologues, IMHO.

I know you aren't this obtuse; think for yourself, man.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 12:04 PM
Correct, which is hypocritical to her stance that women shouldn't have choice. In her view, Bristol should have zero choice in the matter. So to applaud it is contradictory to her views.
I'm going to make this as simple as possible in the hopes that it reaches you.
They are not applauding the fact that she had a choice. The fact that she had a choice exists by Supreme Court precedent. The fact that she had a choice is a fact of the law of the land and they had no dominion over it.

WHAT they're applauding is that, despite the lack of consequences, their daughter recognized the sanctity of life in the manner that they feel all people should.

They're probably gonna be proud of the fact that she feeds her child and refrains from beating it, and clothes it, and sends it school, all choices she will make. That doesn't mean they should espouse parents have the freedom to choose whether or not to feed, or beat, or clothe, or educate, their children.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 12:10 PM
I guess "lie" wouldn't be the best word, but I used three words in / format because I didn't really know the best one to describe it. Stewarts criticism is spot on. Which is why I said I disagree with you in the first post on the subject.
Oh, and if you're gonna accuse someone of lying, make sure you have the evidence to back it up, or at least understand what the word means, MK?

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:10 PM
In a perfect world, abortion would be very rare, in Palin's opinion. Her own daughter's failure to live up to that ideal should not in anyway reflect on what Palin feels we, as a society, should strive for.

What are you talking about? She didn't fail to live up to that ideal....

It's not about hypocrisy; it's about asking what a virtuous society should strive to be. Some people disagree with Palin, and place unfettered personal freedom and "choice" above making abortion more rare....as a priority in a civilized society. Others would seek a middle ground (me for example.) Reasonable people can disagree; that doesn't make her a "hypocrite" except to myopic partisan ideologues, IMHO.

Yes, it does. If she's going to use her daughters CHOICE as a talking point, she better as hell support the CHOICE.

And what's all this mumbo-jumbo about "better society". If you don't agree/like abortions, it's simple: don't have one. Turn the channel. Pro-life is no more morally superior than pro-choice.


I know you aren't this obtuse; think for yourself, man.

It's hard to see through your philosophical bs to your point.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:13 PM
I'm going to make this as simple as possible in the hopes that it reaches you.
They are not applauding the fact that she had a choice. The fact that she had a choice exists by Supreme Court precedent. The fact that she had a choice is a fact of the law of the land and they had no dominion over it.

I know, evidenced by her pro-life stance.

WHAT they're applauding is that, despite the lack of consequences, their daughter recognized the sanctity of life in the manner that they feel all people should.

Sure, undoubtedly. But you cannot, at face value, applaud a choice and say the woman shouldn't have that choice. It should be understood that she would respect the sanctity of life (what a bullshit phrase). It shouldn't even be a talking point if it's so obvious; hence her staunch views.


They're probably gonna be proud of the fact that she feeds her child and refrains from beating it, and clothes it, and sends it school, all choices she will make. That doesn't mean they should espouse parents have the freedom to choose whether or not to feed, or beat, or clothe, or educate, their children.

Nice reframing of the argument. Switching from unborn to born.

Oh, and if you're gonna accuse someone of lying, make sure you have the evidence to back it up, or at least understand what the word means, MK?

If I believe you are wrong and you are pushing your belief, I could realistically classify it as a lie by you.

keg in kc
09-11-2008, 12:16 PM
This thread is philosophical masturbation.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 12:24 PM
Nice reframing of the argument. Switching from unborn to born.
You're the one taking the position that;
But you cannot, at face value, applaud a choice and say the woman shouldn't have that choice.
If she's going to use her daughters CHOICE as a talking point, she better as hell support the CHOICE.
That seems like a pretty wide ranging stance.
If one supports a choice someone makes, then they must support the right to that choice, and by implication without consequence.

People make choices every day to not engage in evil or criminal behavior.
People choose not to kill people who piss them off, they chose to refrain from driving when drunk, they choose not to beat their kids, they choose to work for wages rather than stealing or embezzling.

By your calculus, if we support those choices, we'd damn better support their right to make that choice without consequence.

This is really simple, are you sure you're not just having a laugh? Perhaps you fancy yourself an acolyte of what Cronos once fancied himself?

If I believe you are wrong and you are pushing your belief, I could realistically classify it as a lie by you.
Do you even know what words mean?

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:32 PM
You're the one taking the position that;

That seems like a pretty wide ranging stance.
If one supports a choice someone makes, then they must support the right to that choice, and by implication without consequence.

People make choices every day to not engage in evil or criminal behavior.
People choose not to kill people who piss them off, they chose to refrain from driving when drunk, they choose not to beat their kids, they choose to work for wages rather than stealing or embezzling.

By your calculus, if we support those choices, we'd damn better support their right to make that choice without consequence.

Hold on there. There is no consequence for abortion, so it doesn't fit. And I've never said that we have rights to make choices without consequence.


This is really simple, are you sure you're not just having a laugh? Perhaps you fancy yourself an acolyte of what Cronos once fancied himself?

Nope, I just don't see your side of it. Period.

Abortion is not like murder where there are consequences. Jail time or death penalties are not associated with it. I don't get your point therein.




Do you even know what words mean?

Another word for it is false accusation.

Baby Lee
09-11-2008, 12:38 PM
Hold on there. There is no consequence for abortion, so it doesn't fit. And I've never said that we have rights to make choices without consequence.
The only reason there's not a [criminal] consequence for abortion is because the SC has made it constitutionally protected.
The only reason there IS a consequence for murder, embezzlement, assualt, drunk driving, etc. is because there are laws against it.
So, by your own line of logic, such as it is, were Palin somehow manage to reverse RvW it's no big deal at all, because people would still have the CHOICE, only that choice would now have consequences, which you've JUST said you are just fine with.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2008, 12:39 PM
What are you talking about? She didn't fail to live up to that ideal....

Yes, it does. If she's going to use her daughters CHOICE as a talking point, she better as hell support the CHOICE.

And what's all this mumbo-jumbo about "better society". If you don't agree/like abortions, it's simple: don't have one. Turn the channel. Pro-life is no more morally superior than pro-choice.

It's hard to see through your philosophical bs to your point.

I'm sorry; I can't always devote the time and attention necessary to being precise....as multi-tasking isn't always efficient. The ideal she failed to live up to, is in the moral standards that are, of course, inherent in the abortion debate....namely, unplanned pregnancy (and premarital sex.) That, of course, is the ideal her daughter failed live up to.

But as any caring parent, conservative or liberal, should do, they are supporting their daughter regardless of her "choice." Of course she's supporting her daughter's choice in this case; but, I suspect, had she chosen otherwise....Palen, though disappointed, would remain supportive.

Your opinion that prolife is not morally superior to the prochoice perspective, is just that--your opinion. As someone who is politically, "prochoice"....on a personal level, I have no problem admitting the moral superiority of the prolife position. As a pragmatic realist though, I understand where the public is....in regard to this issue, and why we tolerate what most consider to be a very unfortunate and, usually, unneccessary procedure--as a matter of personal convenience in a republic that has elevated personal freedom, without personal responsibility....to such an esteemed position in our society.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-11-2008, 01:34 PM
This thread is philosophical masturbation.

Thank you. It's almost as though people predicted in the first 10 posts that this would happen.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 03:23 PM
The only reason there's not a [criminal] consequence for abortion is because the SC has made it constitutionally protected.
The only reason there IS a consequence for murder, embezzlement, assualt, drunk driving, etc. is because there are laws against it.
So, by your own line of logic, such as it is, were Palin somehow manage to reverse RvW it's no big deal at all, because people would still have the CHOICE, only that choice would now have consequences, which you've JUST said you are just fine with.

Yes, but you're divulging from the point. She posits that pro-life is the only true way to live and that there should be no choice involved. Hence, her stance on RvW. However, she then applauds her daughter's choice. If there should have been no choice to begin with (such is her stance), then there is nothing to applaud with respect to her daughter.

patteeu
09-11-2008, 07:11 PM
How does this apply in this case?

You have someone applauding the choice their daughter made but wanting in the future to take away the same choice she applauded her for making.

How can you keep asking questions like this after they've been answered numerous times? At some point you just have to face the apparent fact that you don't get it and you're not likely to get it in the near future.