This isn't really news, I suppose, since this has been the impression of many political observers for several weeks now, but it appears that Sarah Palin's perceived lack of qualification to be President is dragging John McCain to defeat. Not that he wasn't going to lose anyway, as the political and economic climate so heavily favors the Democrats, but Palin has made McCain's situation markedly worse. A new NBC/WSJ poll released today gives us numbers that back this theory:
Fifty-five percent of respondents say [Sarah Palin]’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.
In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.
That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.
Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.
Not exactly what John McCain had in mind when he made the rash decision to select her, now is it? Can you imagine what a different landscape we would be looking at had McCain selected Mitt Romney? Now, I don't love Romney, and the two of them obviously dislike each other, but his business expertise and "Presidential" persona would look pretty good about right now.
Sarah Palin drags down GOP ticket
Posted by big.bald.dave on 10/22/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
I really don't think Palin is the reason McCain is going down (despite what the survey says). I think it is the economy. I don't know why that came in ranked as third, but the shifts in economic perception seem much greater.
That said, choosing Romney certainly would have helped McCain weather the economic storm better. Palin definitely doesn't appear to be an asset, but I don't think she is why McCain will lose.
I strongly agree that a McCain/Romney ticket would have been much more formidable. Even Lieberman, whom I suspect McCain actually wanted and was talked out of, would have been much tougher. They vastly overestimated the number of disgruntled Hillary voters and figured a woman would entice them. Someone more moderate and experienced like Kay Bailey Hutchison or Olympia Snowe might have actually pulled that off. But they (and Lieberman, and Tom Ridge) are pro-choice.
I can't wait to read the books that will ultimately be written about these campaigns. I wonder every day about what goes on backstage in the McCain camp.
If I was a McCain strategist, I would have had him oppose the bailout from day one. It would have set him against President Bush, energized the base, attracted moderates and independents, and solidified his mavericky-ness (mavericity? maverickdom? maverickishness?). Everyone I know hated the bailout; I read somewhere that constituent calls to Congress were like 100-1 against. It ultimately would have passed anyway, giving him perfect cover to blame further fallout on those who passed it, e.g. Obama/Pelosi/Reid, and then the whole socialism/spread the wealth thing would stick a little harder than it does now (jump to 1:10 in the video to avoid some blurred/beeped out profanity).
Indeed, the fact that McCain supported the bailout when all the political points were on the other side of the aisle actually scores him quite a few points in my book. I suspect he really did believe it was necessary for the country's security and so he stood up for what was right.
Either that, or the investment banks have him in their back pocket. We report, you decide.
Amen to that, Mike.
Actually, amen to what McCain should have done. I don't know what he was thinking.
Just when I was exulting in being amen'd. (pout)
If I had to make my guess at the McCain thought process, it would look something like this.
OK, we're nominated.
Joe Lieberman?
Eh? What's that you say?
My base hates me and hates him?
Oh.
Uhh...
Sarah Pallin!
Eh? What's that you say?
It's Palin, like pale inn?
Not pallin, like pallin around...
Oh.
Sarah Palin!
Great. My base loves me again!
Uh-oh. Now independents hate me.
Eh? What's that you say?
The base hates the bailout?
Bailout it is!
Independents, do you love me now?
Huh?
Oh.
Everyone hates the bailout.
Uhh...
...
...
...
AYERS SOCIALISM PAL AROUND WITH TERRORISTS SPREAD THE WEALTH JOE THE PLUMBERRRRRR...
(nap)
OK, Mike, that little "convo" actually made me laugh out loud, and it's been a long time since I felt like laughing on this blog!
I definitely don't think Palin was ready for the incredibly fierce spotlight she's been placed under, but I think she's probably being made out to be worse than she is. It's amazing how people are made and ruined by just a few moments in the media spotlight! It's a rough world out there now, information overload and all.
LOL, Mike - great stuff.
Stephanie wrote: I really don't think Palin is the reason McCain is going down (despite what the survey says). I think it is the economy. I don't know why that came in ranked as third, but the shifts in economic perception seem much greater.
Frankly, Stephanie, you're probably right. I think Palin is the most convenient excuse to not vote for McCain. She's a trainwreck of a nominee, that's for sure, and it's easier to articulate and less controversial than saying "John McCain is a principle-less scumbag, despite his honorable military service". I, for one, liked the John McCain of 2000 a heck of a lot better than this 2008 version. This version, however, is the best of them all. ;)
Yeah, Mike, that sounds about right.
I feel bad for Palin. None of this was really her doing. She took the challenge and ran, but if McCain loses, a lot of people will want to blame it on Palin, and her national career as a politician will likely be over (not that that's necessarily bad - who really wants to be a national politician anyway?)
Question of the day:
Once the election is over and the Palins fade from the media spotlight, how long will it take before Bristol and what's-his-name tie the knot?
Vegas should be taking bets on this. :)
I dunno, f.d. But I think the funniest moment yet in Tina Fey's new career as a Palin impersonator was when she said, "I support marriage as it has traditionally been defined: the forced union of two unwilling teenagers."
--David
FD, my bet would be .... never.
I definitely would have loved McCain/Romney, but I really believe McCain disliked Romney quite a bit, and the Huckabee supporters were cukoo bananas trying to make sure Romney wasn't picked, so McCain was in a pickle in that regard.
A question for you Dems, do you think Palin is more of a thorn in the side than Biden, media bias aside? It sure seems to me that Biden is the bigger Gaffemaster, but the media just doesn't care. Palin was right when she mentioned that if she had said what Biden did about the president being tested within six months of election, her career would be over.
Palin is by no means the best for the job, but Biden, having 20+ more years of experience, certainly ins't much better.
Palin was right when she said that the media would jump over her if she had made the same gaffe as Biden. But the reason why they're jumping all over her, and not him, is because she's new. She's unknown, she's unproven, and on top of all that she made some huge gaffes despite being protected from the media by the McCain camp. The media jumped on Biden after this latest gaffe, but I think it's easier for people to look over it because he has a proven track record -- many years -- that Palin just doesn't have.
On top of that, let's face it. McCain didn't pick Palin for her qualifications. He picked her for the attention she would generate. The problem for him has been that she didn't generate the right KIND of attention because she simply wasn't ready. And even though I don't like Palin, I think it's only fair to say that she probably hasn't done all that bad for being thrust into the media spotlight and intense scrutiny literally overnight. If she was just a regular hockey mom hanging out with Joe sixpacks, etc, then what more can we expect of her? It's like taking me and having me run as PM of Norway, after being mayor of the town in which I live (which has 5,000 people). Would I do any better than her? Probably not. (Although I'm sure that the fact that Norway borders Sweden, Finland, AND Russia would be a huge asset. Unfortunately, though, I live too far down south to see any of them from my house. :)
If I were Palin, I don't know who I'd be more ticked off at: McCain or myself. McCain for making me believe I was qualified and ready, or me for believing what McCain told me.
oh, i've been out of the loop.
what did biden say that was so bad? i gathered something about "tested in six months" but what is so bad about that?
FD,
are you american? if so, tell me about your move to norway.
fmhmfranti at gmail dot com
Mfranti,
No, I'm Canadian, but live in Norway. You can read my bio if you go back to the "Introduce yourself" post. Look in the archives of this blog and you'll find it under August, I believe.
My e-mail address can be found in my blogger profile or on my blog.
Here is what Biden said the other day.
what am i not seeing in his remarks?
I think McCain saw it as inviting terrorists to come and challenge Obama if he's president.
but how is it a gaffe?
seriously? i think biden is being practical. we are extremely vulnerable right now with our economy and military stretch to it's limit, i can see some bad stuff happening as a result.
i'm not scared, i think mr. obama will,should he be elected, handle the situation well. he's a cool cucumber that will surround himself with the very best advisers.
but that has nothing to do with ms. palin. she is after all, heaven sent to revive the GOP.
perhaps, she could could turn down those clothes from neiman marcus and instead purchase clothes from sears with one of the many checks she gets from the alaskan people? that might lend credibility to her middle class, average joe, hockey mom narrative?
wait, it's the us government that pays the alaskan people.
i mean, one of the many check ms. palin gets from the state of alaska, that came from the US government.
i'm so confused.
mfranti, it must be nice always swimming in the shallow end of the pool.
it's nice in the shallow end...i can stand up and do handstands.
Just a side note, Obama is definately working for the "middle class" and "Joe Six Packs". Barak's 600+ million on buying his presidency is about equal to Palins Wardrobe...right?
Palin has a bright future ahead of her, according to this MSNBC article. :)
One bit of news this morning...
Charles Fried, a well-regarded conservative thinker, Harvard Law Professor, Reagan appointee (Solicitor General), and McCain campaign advisor, endorsed Obama today. Why you ask? It was "the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis".
Hate to say I told you so y'all, but ... I told you so. :)
i hate that i am taking much joy in your comment bbdave, but i am.
i need to repent now.
Barak's 600+ million on buying his presidency is about equal to Palins Wardrobe...right?
It's OK to be jealous that Obama has been able to raise a ton of money from his grassroots campaign. And you brought up Palin's $150k wardrobe, not any of us wacky liberals.
to be fair, i brought up ms. palin's clothes.
matt was reminding me (and anyone that thinks like me) that i am a fool.
no worries. i like being a fool. i make people laugh.
Ah, so you did - I missed that (obviously). :)
I've got a question to pose. If the election is close and Obama barely pulls it off, do any of you have concerns with the fact that 97% of blacks are voting for him? I understand that this is the first time a black man has run, which is awesome, but won't he have won based on race and not qualification or ability? I know it may be the same for McCain that whites vote for him because he is white, but not nearly enough to skew the election.
Matt,
Would you have been concerned if 97% of Mormons had voted for Mitt Romney? (For all I know, they probably did in the primaries.) Wouldn't they have voted on him based on religion and not qualification or ability?
OK, so remember how we were having the debate a while back about Obama voting to not ban partial birth abortion because the bill did not contain an exception for the mother's life? Some thought it was just an excuse to be prochoice and that partial birth abortion was never warranted under any circumstance. I stated that I was unsure, that I thought it was a horrible procedure (which I still do), but that I had heard that there may be a rare case in which that loophole is needed.
I want you all to read this story and tell me your thoughts. Does it change any of your opinions at all, or do you still feel that Obama was wrong for wanting an exception for the mother's life in that bill?
I don't want to comment here. I just thought I would share the OFFICIAL church's website on Prop 8. I know, I know. Apparently, this is an 'off-hands' topic here since it's so important. Nonetheless, I thought it should be delivered as the church's official standing on the Marriage Amendments.
http://www.preservingmarriage.org
And for those who argue "it is just about equal rights for homosexuals & won't change anything" ... Open your eyes to the truth:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=78829
"CA school holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners" among other things. Massachussettes has now integrated homosexual topics into EVERY topic in elementary schools. It's not just smoke and mirrors, folks. It's real.
At any rate, I figured as you like to carry the LDS name, you might be interested in posting the Church's official stance, and do a bit of good for the world.
THANKS! :)
Thank you tanya&co, we have had a few posts on Prop 8, I believe. Only one is closed down, and that is because the discussion was getting ugly. Your comments are appreciated.
FD, yes, that does give me reason to pause. Thank you for sharing it. I need to mull it over.
I read that story, FD, and I am not convinced. Reading up on the condition, I found cesarean sections are used for severe cases. Consider what would happen if the babies were healthy & the mother had the same condition. Cesarean, hands-down. No question.
It is also disturbing that she repetively puts her life above a new child. Women do have health rights. The procedure is abominable. Babies are tortured. There ARE other options. "CHOICE" IS abused.
The end.
I also wondered why a caesarean couldn't be an option. I'm not a doctor, so obviously I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that a c-section carries too many risks when the situation is that critical. It is, after all, fairly major surgery, and is it wise to put a patient under when her blood pressure is sky-high, has blood poisoning and and organs are shutting down? It would likely be a death sentence. Same with an epidural, it takes a bit of time and when time isn't on your side, that baby needs to get out stat.
I'm sure that if a c-section was an option, then it would have been used in such a scenario. These women WANT their babies, but their condition can deteriorate so quickly and the condition can become so critical, that they're left to make a horrible decision.
"It is also disturbing that she repetively puts her life above a new child."
You wouldn't if you were facing certain death? Maybe I'm just harsh and I have to admit that I've never been pregnant. But if it's between me and the baby -- especially if you have a husband and other children to consider -- I want to come out alive. I realize that pregnancy always carries some risk and I would be willing to take some risks to preserve the life of the child. But when the doctor is telling you, "we have to do this now or you're going to die," then there isn't much choice there. If you are willing to sacrifice your life, my hat's off to you. Honestly, that's heroic. I don't think I could, though. Especially not when there is a family left behind.
I think the mitigating factor for me is the viability of the fetus outside the womb. In this woman's case, it appears she would die if the fetus is not removed from her body. Since the fetus is not viable, in the absence of medical intervention, the likely scenario in 24 hours would be dead mom and dead baby. For me, that is very different than the baby reaching a viable point as would be the case with a late-term partial birth abortion. The only definitive treatment for preeclampsia is delivery of the fetus and placenta. This is a reasonable choice for viable fetuses or in cases in which the mother's health is at significant risk . . . Failure of medical management necessitates iatrogenic vaginal delivery. Maternal or fetal deterioration requires emergent cesarean delivery.
(emedicine).
I think that had the fetus been viable, and induction dangerous, c-section would have been the appropriate course of action to attempt to preserve the life of the fetus.
Now, what Obama said during the last debate (that bhodges quoted) was With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
This woman has made an excellent case for why the intact dilation and extraction procedure may be an appropriate option for pregnancies before 24 weeks when the fetus is not viable and the health of the mother is in danger. But, IMO, this does not apply to late-term partial birth abortion (which is what I have been arguing. This is exactly what I have said several times: I don't see how partial birth abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother in late-term abortion.)
Also, her assertion that I was lucky because the partial-birth abortion ban was not yet in effect in October of 2004. If it had been, I would have been forced to undergo labor and delivery, no matter the risks to my health, and I might right now be either dead or so brain damaged I would be unable to type this. is simply untrue. The federal ban says this:
This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Hmmm. I am confused. I looked up SB 230 (The Partial Ban Abortion Act in Illinois in 1997 - the one that Obama said that he didn't support because he says it didn't contain an exception for the mother's health and life.)
Here is the "Synopsis of Bill as Introduced":
Creates the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. Prohibits
partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of a mother
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or
physical injury, provided that no other medical procedure would
suffice for that purpose. Makes performance of a partial-birth
abortion a Class 4 felony. Provides for a civil action by the father
and maternal grandparents of the fetus. Prohibits prosecution of a
woman on whom a partial-birth abortion is performed. Effective 60 days
after becoming law.
Amendments to Bill: AMENDMENTS ADOPTED: HOUSE - 0 SENATE - 0
It appears to me that the bill was introduced with a provision to save the life of the mother. And yet Obama says he voted against it because it didn't have a provision to save the life of the mother. Am I missng something here?
Aha, here is an instance of one of those language techicalities.
Yes, the bill did include a provision for "the life of the mother." But he voted against it because it didn't include anything about protecting "the health of the mother," according to ontheissues.org. My mistake, as I previously stated it was "the life of the mother."
There's a good debate about this going on at feministmormonhousewives right now, about the technicalities of the terms "health" and "life" in pregnancy.
Well, honestly, I think health starts to get into the realms of selfishness. When a fetus is viable outside of the womb, is it appropriate for a mother to choose to terminate the life of the fetus so that the quality of her life will be better? In late-term labor, what health circumstances exist that could possibly warrant killing a baby over just delivering the baby when it is viable outside of the womb?
Obama himself uses the word "life" in justifying his vote. IMO, he is blurring the issue himself.
If his position is truly that late-term partial birth abortion is justified to preserve the health of the mother (and I can't think of any health issue - someone please feel free to enlighten me if you can come up with one), then he can take that position. I disagree, and I feel that his vote on S.B. 130 was wrong.
When you choose to have a baby, you assume risks to your health. My thyroid is now permanantly damaged thanks to this last pregnancy. To choose to have a baby, and then at some point late in the pregnancy say, "Well, now my health is compromised, so I had better terminate this pregnancy to maintain my health" seems like a very selfish choice. I honestly can't picture a woman who wants to have a baby making that choice. It seems to me to be more of a convenient excuse for a Presidential candidate who wants to deflect attention away from the fact that he is a very staunch abortion rights supporter. But, like I said, if anyone can come up with a health condition that would warrant an abortion late in the pregnancy (when the fetus is viable) versus just delivering the baby, I am all ears.
Of course, not all pregnant women have chosen to have a baby. So I'll stir the old rape-or-incest bit into this mix. What if a woman were pregnant because of rape, but nonetheless, after a very emotional internal struggle, initially decided to keep the baby--only to find out late in the pregnancy that doing so would (let's say) permanently damage her thyroid? Would that be an acceptable reason for the woman to change her mind? To Palin it would not. If Palin had her druthers she would not only advise this woman not to have an abortion, she would make it illegal for this woman to have an abortion. But what say you all? Should the law require this woman to go ahead and complete the pregnancy and damage her health?
Yes or no?
--David
The biggest problem with partial-birth abortion is the heinous method it uses. I realize in her situation, the babies were dead/dying, not viable outide the uterus. My concern is for the baby who was still alive & the pain he underwent. "Doctors" who perform these procedures do not care for the excrutiating pain babies are undergoing in this barbaric procedure. If they did offer "pain management" abortion advocates would have to admit the babies are ALIVE (duh), and have FEELINGS (double-duh).
Folks, we treat ANIMALS better than we treat BABIES. Animal rights activists make sure they are put to sleep w/out pain. The irony is just incredible.
A loving mother puts her child's life before hers any time. I am a mother, I have been in life-compromising situations in the delivery room. There is no question. And I am not trying to put myself up - mothers have done this for centuries.
Stephanie: Thanks for the enlightenment of Obama's vote. Very interesting how he minces words.
Hey - check out this site:
http://www.neverfindout.org/
Enjoy!
Stephanie, read the comments of that fMh link regarding "life" vs. "health." Some of them might make you think, especially about the one about the woman who lost all her limbs. I remember reading about that one in the news.
Obama has stated that he doesn't claim infallibility on abortion. He realizes that he may be wrong. Of course I think that he may be wrong, but I'm finding out first-hand now just how hard it is to get the unbiased truth, whatever it is, on this issue. I can certainly understand now why it's confusing and why someone could believe the opposite of what's true, whatever it is.
I decided to ask the lady who wrote that blog post personally. I realize that this woman doesn't share our religion and probably has some different views than us, but I wanted to hear what she had to say straight from her. You may disagree with her decision, but hopefully you can understand it. I don't think that she didn't want her baby or was looking for an excuse to terminate the pregnancy. I wrote her an e-mail with some questions and here is her reply:
"I've answered this on my blog many times. I'm going to keep the answer very short.
My blood pressure was so high--as is often the case with HELPP and Preeclampsia--that major abdominal surgery (which of course is what a csection IS) would most likely have cost me my uterus, and quite possibly my life, without having any chance of saving my surviving son. At its worst, my blood pressure was 200/160. Can you imagine how much I would have bled with surgery with my blood pumping at that speed? There was no reason to risk it, and my life, that way.
Additionally, I personally know of one other case (Julia at the blog uncommon misconception) who also had a late term abortion, but not because her health was at risk. Her son was so severly disabled in utereo--no kidneys, meaning little to no amniotic fluid, meaning as soon as his pain sensors developed he would likely have been in agonizing pain--that she was forced to terminate. The severity of his condition, of course, was not revealed until late in the pregnancy. She chose to stop his heart with one procedure and then terminate the pregnancy with a D&X because it was the kindest thing to do for her SON.
So called "partial birth abortions", a medical procedure that doesn't actually exist, btw, are less half of one percent of ALL abortions. They are ONLY done to prevent a child from harm, or to save the mother. They are NEVER performed as a matter of so called "convienence" and if that's what you've been told, you were lied to.
If I sound a bit harsh here it's because this information is readily available from multiple sources--but because those sources are "pro choice" ones, they are disavowed. So I am asked, over and over, to state the facts. :) So I apologize. But I hope this helps.
Cecily"
I think the bottom line is that none of us can ever say 100% for sure what we would do in a situation unless we went through it ourselves. Personally, I can't fault this woman or her doctor for the decision they felt they had to make. If they were wrong, well, we don't always make the right decision when we're pressed up against the wall.
Tanya, in regards to treating babies worse than animals, "The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X (aka partial birth abortion) remains legal as long as there is first an "injection that kills the fetus." (Wikipedia)
I hope everyone understands that I'm not sharing this information because I'm some "stay out of my uterus" pro-choice liberal. I'm not. I share the Church's abortion stance and I just think that the health/life of the mother should be the #1 priority. THAT is where I am pro-choice. I think that both sides of the abortion war twist the truth in order to further their agenda and feed us with false information, leaving out pertinent details when convenient. I just want to point out that things aren't always as black and white as we think they are. I want to know the truth, whatever it is. And just for the record, I still don't know which side is telling the truth. I think that the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
I'm finding out first-hand now just how hard it is to get the unbiased truth, whatever it is, on this issue. I can certainly understand now why it's confusing and why someone could believe the opposite of what's true, whatever it is.
I find this is the case on a lot of issues. Isn't this one of the signs of the last days? That truth will be called error, and error will be called truth? That evil will be called good and good will be called evil? How do we discern the truth? Spiritual discernment is both a spiritual gift and a blessing from the temple. In trying to discern what is truth and what is error, I use three sources: 1. Book of Mormon 2. Guidance of prophet 3. Inspiration received at the temple. And prayer. There was a good quote in one of the Ensigns this past year: "If you want to speak to the Lord, pray. If you want the Lord to speak to you, read the scriptures". I add "and listen to the prophet and go to the temple". So, my plan for when I don't know is to seek all the information about an issue I can, then pray, and then search those three sources of truth. I haven't found all the answers yet. :)
I want to know the truth, whatever it is.
We share this as common ground. I just want to find out the truth, too.
I looked over the post at fmh, the comments and the links. I still think that "health" of the mother is too broad. Even the church article by Nelson that was used to justify health of the mother says mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized. Seriously jeopardized to me means risk of death or close to it.
Each of the examples cited (particularly reece's) was talking about the life of the mother being at risk.
The woman who lost all her limbs is a good example of how childbirth can be very dangerous. My heart just breaks for her and for her family. Her health gave a good reason why an emergency c-section is a necessity, but I didn't think that it gave a good reason why an abortion would be necessary.
The email from the woman clearly shows that her life was in danger. The baby of the other woman she references wouldn't have lived. The church's position accounts for those situations, too. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
I don't fault that woman for the choice she made. It is clear that the baby was not viable and her life was in danger. I feel that her situation is covered by the church's stance.
I thought the most compelling argument in the comments was the book that was linked to. The doctors clearly made a poor choice. If there is a chance that the woman could die, that outweighs the chance that she couldn't. I think that is what the church means by A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. There is a chance she could die, not proven that she will die.
Even in the partial birth abortion bill that Obama vetoed, it says Prohibits
partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of a mother
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or
physical injury, provided that no other medical procedure would
suffice for that purpose.
Personally, I feel that this is enough to protect the mother's health from serious jeopardy, so I disagree with Obama.
Overall, this is my impression: if you (not necessarily you, FD, but just you in general) feel that abortion is justified when carrying a baby to term may compromise the quality of the life of the mother (she would have to raise the baby in poverty, for example), then I can see how you would feel that a late-term abortion is justified when delivering the baby would compromise the quality of the health of the mother. This appears to me to be Obama's stance, and it is not a stance that I agree with.
I also don't agree with Palin's stance. I don't think either extreme is appropriate, but I also don't think that the church's position justifies a complete pro-choice position, particularly in light of the scathing words Elder Nelson used in his article.
How many of us really agree 100% with every tenet on the platform we are voting for or every single position on every single issue of the candidate we are voting for? For the most part, it seems to me that we have to make trade-offs or choices. I cannot 100% defend pure capitalism, and I cannot 100% denounce pure socialism. Somewhere in the middle (a lot closer to capitalism) is where I lie. I cannot 100% denounce abortion nor 100% defend abortion. The church's position is in the middle. Honestly, I am tired of defending pure capitalism and tired of defending Palin. Of course I am not going to agree 100% with everything. Prop 8 is another example. But, I look at all the information I have and make the best choice I can make. And I respect others who look at all the same information and make the best choice they can make.
I really, really appreciate what FD does. FD shares information and asks questions, but she never says, "Well, you're an idiot because you don't come to the same conclusion, I do". So, thank you, FD, for your very open mind. I don't mind at all coming to different conclusions. The hot phrase for Mormons who oppose prop 8 is "I have to vote on my conscience". Me, too.
Off my soapbox and back to my children, now.
Thanks, Stephanie. I appreciate your point of view as well. I can appreciate that you look to the scriptures and the temple for finding truth. You have a gift. One that I don't have. And as far as the prophet is concerned, I appreciate and consider everything he says, but don't consider it to be infallible. I'm not saying that you do, but I'm just saying that the prophet doesn't know everything, nor does he have answers to every single detail and problem in the world's most complex issues. I'm sure you would agree. So I guess that's where I feel like I'm sort of left up to myself to do my best to find the truth (like on this abortion issue), hear both sides of it and then use my own best judgment. That's when the spirit of discernment comes into play -- something that is hard for me to feel and recognize.
Stephanie, you said:
"Overall, this is my impression: if you (not necessarily you, FD, but just you in general) feel that abortion is justified when carrying a baby to term may compromise the quality of the life of the mother (she would have to raise the baby in poverty, for example), then I can see how you would feel that a late-term abortion is justified when delivering the baby would compromise the quality of the health of the mother. This appears to me to be Obama's stance, and it is not a stance that I agree with."
I just want to make it clear that I would not fall into that category. I don't think that poverty or any reason -- except when the women's health/life is in jeopardy -- justifies a late term abortion. Obama has stated that he supports a ban on late-term abortions, except for the health/life exception. As we're now seeing, it's very hard to differentiate health/life. To me, they are virtually interchangeable. I agree that there are certain "health" or quality of life problems that would not justify a late-term abortion. (Someone in fMh gave the example of morning sickness, for example. Of course this would not be justifiable because although annoying, it's not dangerous and eventually goes away.) I think, however, that there are other "quality of life" issues that are not so black and white. I suppose that a million things can possibly go wrong in a pregnancy and some could perhaps be devastating and debilitating to a woman and her family, even if her life itself isn't in jeopardy. In that respect, I actually don't think that Obama is such a bad guy for wanting that exception to be allowed. I admit that I have trouble with how such a loophole could be potentially used as an excuse to terminate a pregnancy because of a non life-threatening condition. However, a part of me would also appreciate the choice to decide for myself if, for instance, I was faced with terminating a late-term pregnancy in order to save not my life, but my limbs, my sight, my mobility, etc. I know that that may sound a bit selfish to you moms, who would throw yourselves under a bus for your kids. I'd like to say with confidence that I'd be willing to sacrifice all those things for a baby, but I can't. I simply don't know. I admire anyone who could, and yet I sympathize with those who can't -- especially in the case of a family that is dependent on mom's health in order to work and bring home a paycheque.
I think this whole discussion and search for answers has taught me yet again why we need to always have open minds. For years and years, I demonized anyone who would have a partial birth abortion and the doctors who perform them. I was convinced that absolutely nothing could ever justify it. If it weren't for Obama's stance, which has troubled me and thus motivated me to research the subject, I'd still be going on my old assumptions. I still don't agree with him 100% on abortion, but I do appreciate his desire to protect women and give them a choice in their pregnancies. I know the word "choice" is an inflammatory term because those of us who aren't truly "pro-choice" feel that women abuse that choice. Yes, they absolutely do. However, I now see how that choice can protect some women from losing their lives or protect them from devastating illness/disability. We may not agree with their decision to terminate a pregnancy instead of having to endure these illnesses/disabilitites, but surely we can understand it.
I'm upset at both sides of the abortion war. It's so hard to get the unbiased truth and that leads to two extremes: people becoming militantly aggressive in defending a woman's right to choose ("stay out of my uterus") to the point that the baby really is forgotten and discarded on a whim. On the other side, you have people who blow up abortion clinics (who, from what I've read, Palin declined to label as terrorists) and people who distort the truth about abortion or refuse to admit the need for it in some cases. There's no question that partial birth abortion is a sad, grusome procedure under any circumstance, but it's interesting how some pro-life websites are quick to point out that the baby's brain matter is removed after its skull is punctured with scissors, while leaving out the part about lethal injection. As if it's a minor detail.
I think it was Hillary who said, "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." I have to say that I agree with that statement -- with particular emphasis on the word "rare."
I've been thinking about it all day, FD, and I still come back to a few things:
In a late-term pregnancy, when the baby is viable outside the womb, I can't see a reason why the health (or even the life) of the mother would necessitate killing the baby before removing it vs. just removing it. If the mother's health is "in jeapardy", and the only way to correct it is to remove the baby, then a c-section seems to be the quickest way to do that. Even with a dilation and evacuation, wouldn't it be possible to dilate the mother and remove the baby without killing it first? The procedure is used when babies die naturally to remove them all in one piece so the parents have a body to grieve over and bury. I just don't see a reason why the baby would need to die. Of course the baby may die in the process of removing it from the mother in an abrupt and emergency fashion, but that would not be considered abortion.
I do disagree with you on the limbs, sight, mobility, FD. The decision at-hand would be quality of life vs. value of life. Is the quality of a mother's life (to maintain a limb, for example) more important than the value of the life of a child? If the life of the child would need to be ended in order for the mother to retain the quality of her life, I would consider that murder and oppose it for the same reason I oppose abortion in the first place. Plus, I think that any medical circumstances dire enough to necessitate that type of decision would fall under "unless necessary to save the life of a mother
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or
physical injury, provided that no other medical procedure would
suffice for that purpose". I think that it was enough protection for the mother, so I just disagree with Obama that it wasn't.
I wish abortion was rare, but in the U.S., 22% of pregnancies end in abortion. 1 in 5. That is not rare. The number of abortions per year is declining (which is a great thing). I suspect the reason is access to birth control. And, BTW, I am not a pro-lifer who is against birth control. I am very much FOR birth control.
Anyways, FD, good discussing this with you. Barring new information, I doubt we'll change each other's minds. If you do find new info, let me know.
Once again, I'm not a medical expert, so I'm unable to answer all of your questions, Stephanie. I simply don't know. The only thing I do now is that pregnancy is a very complicated thing and a million things can go wrong, which may, in rare circumstances, necessitate a procedure such as a later term or partial birth abortion.
I understand your view that the life of a baby would take precedence over permanent, debilitating/devastating health consequences for the mother. It is, after all, taking the life of an innocent baby. I will not mince words about that, because the end result is a dead baby. "Murder" is a bit strong for me though, because I don't think that most women who would choose their limbs, sight, etc, over their unborn baby are "murderers" by definition. Killing in self-defence, perhaps? If I chose a late term abortion because going through with the pregnancy was going to permanently damage my heart, my kidneys, sight, mobility, etc, would that make me a murderer? You could argue that it would make me selfish and weak, but I think murderer is pretty harsh. I'd save that term for those who have an abortion simply because they slept with their best friend's husband.
In a case like that murder is probably too strong of a word. But, it is still the deliberate destruction of a human life. And I still can't think of a good reason to end the life before taking the baby out versus just taking the baby out and giving it a chance to live.
Why is it that every topic on this site somehow devolves into a debate on either abortion or gay marriage?
Maybe it's a variant of Godwin's Law, BBD.
To get back to Sarah Palin and whether she's a drag on the ticket: I'm guessing she's energizing the base about as much as she's alienating independents, so it's a wash. If McCain loses he's got no one to blame but himself. Anyway, the story now is that Palin has "gone rogue" and is campaigning more for "Palin 2012" than for "McCain 08."
I don't know if that's true and don't much care, since there are plenty of other, better reasons for rejecting Palin. I just watched the video of her criticizing earmarks with these words:
"And sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good, things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."
What a dope! Palin totally deserves the ribbing she gets from Rachel Maddow here.
--David
I don't think Palin is really energizing the base at this point. I self-identify with the "conservative base" and I (nor anyone that I know of) feel "energized" right now. If she actually thinks she has a shot at the 2012 Presidential race, she may be delusional . . . Look, I really don't dislike her that much. But I agree with Anon David that if McCain loses, it was his fault. He should have picked Romney!
In fairness to McCain, the economy and the war and Bush's unpopularity may have stacked the deck against him so much that he couldn't have won even with Romney. And if that's so, then for Romney it may be a blessing in disguise not to be associated with a losing ticket. Hard to say. In any event, I think if McCain and Palin lose, she's got no future in national politics. She'll fade away into the twilight zone of such other dimly remembered jokes as the Captain and Tenille. The GOP will have no desire for her or need for her. If they want to appeal to the evangelical base, they've got a much better alternative in Huckabee. He's got more experience than Palin and he's a better speaker. He knows how to talk the right-wing talk without sounding dumb like Palin. If the GOP wants to appeal to the middle, they've got Romney, whose intelligence and real-world business experience might look especially good if the economy's still bad in 2011. If it is, Republican primary voters just might go for brains and experience instead of religious identity politics. So I'm thinking Romney is still very much in our political future. He's only 61 or 62 and could make a credible run in 2012 and again in 2016.
--David
"Why is it that every topic on this site somehow devolves into a debate on either abortion or gay marriage?" - - AMEN!!!!
Check out this video - one of the more effective campaign ads I've seen in recent times. It makes use of one of my favorite argumentative tactics - letting one hang one's self with one's own words.
Ouch. That is an effective ad. I was cringing because I knew what was coming next. It was refreshingly "un-ugly", too. Sigh.
stephanine, what are you talking about?
The video campaign ad BBD links to.
duh!
thanks
Post a Comment