Bristol's Choice

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Evax @ 09/09/2008 5:35:51 PM

    It is terrifying to find so many people supporting Bristol's free sex with wild boys and Palin's decision to bring a Down-syndrome child to the world. Do Americans still have morality and the concept of quality control? Is God damning America?

    • Posted By: liddykitty @ 09/10/2008 10:17:29 AM

      I am sure it must just be ignorance regarding communication and writing on your part and not prejudice against down syndrome individuals, as your remark might be taken. My son is 9 months old and has every RIGHT to live. And yes I was diagnosed pre-delivery. Going by your remark I hope they can find a genetic marker for evil and cure you, not kill you. My son on the other hand is perfect just the way he was made.

      • Posted By: Alamerica @ 09/11/2008 10:27:44 PM

        I am terribly sorry that you decided to bring a Down-syndrome child to the world. You must understand that it is a crime to abuse a child. To bring a Down-syndrome child to the world sets him up for life-long failure. Are you really unaware of the abuse and crime you committed?

      • Posted By: youmustbejoking @ 09/10/2008 10:28:38 AM

        amen!

    • Posted By: youmustbejoking @ 09/10/2008 10:27:12 AM

      Do americans still have........the concept of quality control?????? YOU should be ashamed of yourself, and look in the mirror. No one is without fault and those that live in glass houses should throw no stones...

  • Posted By: maddie17 @ 09/11/2008 9:49:26 AM

    Banning abortion does not have anything to do with a woman's choice. You are murdering a baby. You should have thought about the fact that you didn't want a baby before you decided to have sex. It wasn't that innocent babies fault that you decided you didn't want it. To bad. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your actions. And a doctor or nurse should not have to perform an abortion if it goes against their beliefs. I believe they take an oath to heal people not kill them. And in the cases of rape and incest, God is all knowing and all powerful. He is in control ALL of the time. He never said our life would be easy or that we would like it but He does give us what we can handle. Congratulations to Mrs. Palin and her daughter for being role models that the country can look up to. They found themselves in a situation that was undesirable but stood up for what they believe. I am glad they taught Bristol to be the mature person that she is and take responsibiltiy for her actions.

    • Posted By: Stac73 @ 09/11/2008 12:29:41 PM

      It has EVERYTHING to do with a woman's choice. You know NOTHING of the circumstances that a woman can find herself in this situation yet you judge loud and proud. If a doctor doesn't want to perform a procudure, that's fine. Chances are, they won't be in that position since most places that do abortions only staff doctors who will. I believe in God, but I also believe that if a woman suffers a severely tramatic experience she should not have to also suffer those consequences by being FORCED to have a child. A woman's body should NOT be regulated by the governement plain and simple. And your obvious adoration of Palin is typically one sided. Her daughter in no way had a choice with her decision. Not based on how Pail thinks and feels. There is only 1 choice she was forced with: have the baby and get married. And it's not something to be proud of. At all.

    • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/11/2008 10:06:41 AM

      Maddie17- Here is what you are not getting. Not everyone in the country believes that God is in control all of the time. So it is extraordinarily unfair of you impose your beliefs onto someone who wants a procedure that they deem to have no affiliation with the All Mighty. The fetus is not a baby. If it were to be born within the first trimester it would have a zero chance of survival, so you really arent killing anything. Yes there are doctors who believe this statement to be incorrect, but there are many that believe it to be fact; and will continue to uphold their beliefs and perform the procedure even if it were illegal. Under those circumstances a women would be putting her own health at risk. No matter how hard you pray, there will never be a point in the future of this country where every person feels that abortion is murder- so stop trying to convince people otherwise. No matter who becomes president, this debate will continue because the country is divided on this seemingly moot issue. Therefore why cant we put this issue aside, and focus on what really affects our country- education, the economy, foreign policy, and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can continue fighting this pointless debate, but nothing is ever going to change- no matter what McCain says to you (and by the way, have you noted what his stance is on this issue- put aside Palin, because it is not her policy that will go into effect- McCain is not going to go to bat on this issue). Fight the important relevant fight, and let this pointless issue be. You want to object fine, don???t have an abortion yourself, but stop imposing your biased will on others.

      • Posted By: Anonymous2740 @ 09/11/2008 10:26:36 AM

        "so you really arent killing anything"

        The fetus is an immature baby, and it is alive. If it were dead, it would be ejected from the uterus. While it may not be able to survive on its own without the mother, the same can be said about many children, but we aren't allowing parents to kill their children are we?

        It's tragic and pathetic what some people will fool themselves into believing for selfishness and convenience. Also, I really don't have a problem with mothers that would kill their own unborn baby going to back-rooms or back-allies to get their abortions performed. If we are lucky, they will get a taste of their own medicine. Society would be better off without such people anyway. And, by the way, I'm agnostic (leaning toward atheism), so my pro-innocent-life stance is rooted in human rights and decency not theology.

        • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/11/2008 10:39:58 AM

          Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you just said? You feel that the women who have abortions should get a taste for their own medicine? If it is so important for the baby to be kept alive, why are you so vehement in saying it is alright for the mother to die? I would think someone that wants to protect life would want every person involved to survive. Please explain to me why one life is more valuable than the other? Your argument makes no sense. You do not seem to actually care about human survival- so please explain this to me. I do not mean for this to come out as an attack, I really want to understand why you feel this way.

          • Posted By: madison1206 @ 09/11/2008 12:15:08 PM

            FccFH- I completely agree with your posts. Bottom line is, abortion is not going to be made illegal. The only reason it seems like it is a possibility right now is that the Republican party needs the conservative vote and they weren't all completely sold on McCain alone. If they take the White House I think it is likely that this issue will be shelved until they need it again. Unfortunately, it is working and people are voting solely on this issue rather then looking at the big picture. If you are behind all the right-wing politics then by all means, vote republican. But please don't vote just because you think a vote for McCain will outlaw abortion....it won't. What really gets me is that Pro-lifers try to paint Pro-choice as Pro-abortion. I have never heard of anyone wanting people to get abortions just because. Pro-choicers just tend to be a little more realistic about the world. In a perfect world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and everyone who wanted to adopt would be able to but let's face it, that is not reality. If we want to really try to reduce the number of abortions there is a way. Everyone (pro-life and pro-choice) need to focus on what will lower that number.....education!

          • Posted By: Anonymous2740 @ 09/11/2008 11:40:30 AM

            There is nothing hypocritical in what I just said. I am pro-innocent-life. That means I can be for the death penalty for murderers and against abortion at the same time. The baby is always innocent and a mother that would kill her own baby certainly is not. Of course, the best scenario is for the mother and the baby to live.

            • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/11/2008 12:11:44 PM

              I understand your point. I disagree, but I do get it. I think there are a lot of variables that are not being considered. Sometimes that fetus is not so innocent. If in the case of drugs or rape, the fetus could have been conceived in a manner that would put its own life at risk, and very often the mothers. For many people that are considering an abortion they do not feel or think that what is in them, given it is so early in the process, is truly a living and breathing human being. You have to understand that at this point the fetus truly isnt living. During the first trimester the babys chance of survival if born is zero- not to sound cold or heartless (or that I truly think this way), but to some people, the fetus, at this point, has as much relevance as the appendix. Soon-to-be mothers have not had the ability to connect with something that they deem as important as their appendix, and when weighing their options, considering that they could be bringing a child into a world where they may not be able to afford it, offer proper health care, or even want- the child could end up growing up in poverty, crime, with poor or no education??? if put into adoption there is no saying that the child will end up any better. And in some of the most extreme cases, look at some mothers who did have the baby, kept it and end up doing terrible things- maiming the child, keeping the child in a malnourished state, and in some moments of insanity, actually killing the child. This is not a better scenario.

              I know many of you reading this are keeling over, and before anyone goes jumping down my throat on this (which I welcome, but just think about this at least), I am not saying that I personally agree with the thought process that leads to having an abortion- but what I can at least understand is that no matter what I feel, or think, some women who are in this position will continue to still have abortions. There is nothing I can do to stop it. Even if it is made illegal, it will continue, and only in a riskier fashion. The likelihood that abortion would be made illegal in this country is extremely slim. Too many people vehemently support and are against it- it will forever be an issue that has people at two extreme sides; and though it is an important issue, it really is a distraction. It just seems that considering the many issues that plague this country, this is an issue that should be put on the backburner.

          • Posted By: madison1206 @ 09/11/2008 12:07:40 PM

            FccFH- I completely agree with your posts! Botton line is, abortion is not going to be made illegal. The only reason it seems like that is a possibility right now is that the Republican party needs the conservative vote. If they take the White House, this issue will be shelved again until they need it once more. Unfortunately, it is working and many people are focusing solely on this issue rather then looking at the big picture. What really gets me is that Pro-lifers want to paint Pro-choice to mean the same thing as Pro-abortion. I don't think you will find one person who wants abortions to happen. Pro-choicers just tend to be a little more realistic about how the world works. In a perfect world, there would be no unwanted pregnanacies but that's just not reality. If we really want to change this, then everyone (pro-life or pro-choice) needs to focus on what will really will reduce the number of abortions- education!

  • Posted By: mweber22 @ 09/10/2008 3:46:52 AM

    OK OK media....we get it! you dont want Palin to have any popularity. You will do ANYTHING, print ANY story to try and manipulate america's opinion. That's because you see a threat in her... a threat to your liberal cause. You would never want a conservative woman to rise to power, simply because she doesnt necessarily hold all of your ideals. You feel threatened that perhaps she could change the political landscape and is not the type of woman you see as having Vice Presidential status. I know most of the people reading these articles agree with EVERYTHING Newsweek has to say about her, however; many Americans dont and are waking up the bias. Instead of holding only politicians who you dont agree with accountable you should hold all of them (yes including liberal democrats). i see how you are clandestinley trying to ruin her future. Newsweek and many other media sources are taking up the opportunity to destroy Palin's reputation, she's a newcomer and this is there one chance. sure she deserves to be questioned, however, if it were a liberal it would have NEVER been done so viciously and you would not be working so hard as to paint an unfair and biased picture of her. you really are doing a disservice to the american people by not being fair and balanced. let us decide ourselves and hold all politicians to the same level of accountability. I am 20 years old and can tell theres an agenda. thats pretty sad. didnt journalism teach you anything about fair reporting?!?!

    • Posted By: footballmom @ 09/10/2008 1:01:56 PM

      Well maybe if she'd answer some questions instead of just being the attack pit bull, maybe people would learn the truth about her. All we have to go on is what's reported in the news. There is factual information too -- check out politifact.org
      I'm tired of hearing she's just like the average woman -- except for the lipstick, she's nothing like me.

      • Posted By: liddykitty @ 09/11/2008 11:05:36 AM

        Well not all the cantidates that are running can get the press to agree to only questions they allow like OBAMA.

      • Posted By: Shannon in FL @ 09/10/2008 2:46:52 PM

        She is nothing like me. Nor is she like anyone else I know. Then again, I don't socialize with overly religious people who look down on everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe. Intolerance and fanaticism gives me hives.

  • Posted By: azrights @ 09/11/2008 10:49:21 AM

    They seek not just to ban abortion, but to re-define birth control pills as abortifacients. The argument is being put forward by the right that they believe a viable life begins at fertilization, not at conception. This new attack on the ability for women to control their reproductive rights is particularly disturbing given the rates of unplanned pregnancy. It should also be noted that Governor Palin belongs to "Feminists for Life," a group that claims it does not take a position on contraceptive use, but the information on its website has a clear anti-contraceptive message. Time magazine was wrong when it stated that the group was pro-contraceptive use. It is also unclear about how the candidates for the Republicans stand on this issue. It needs to be clearly defined as to the type of contraceptive use they believe is acceptable. The State of Alaska website lists the "Billings??? method as an alternative to contraceptive use, where is the study on the efficacy of it use? Of course, the only methods that help prevent disease and reduce unwanted pregnancy are abstinence and proper and consistent condom use, but that is not the question, it is the preferred attack on contraceptive use, used by many conservatives. The argument that contraceptives do not prevent STI's or STD's, which is not their intention, is not a legitimate argument against their use. Further, Secretary Leavitt is clearly trying to extend a small section of the United States Code to cover every workplace that accepts money from the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, to include sub-grantees, including employees not paid under those grants and who may or may not have direct contact with a patient seeking medical advice. This proposed rule could include insurance companies and could likely cover pharmacies and other businesses not specified in the regulations. It is a blatant attempt to erode the rights of women to have control over their own medical care. We do have a right to know how the candidates feel about these issues and how that might translate into policy.

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/09/2008 10:36:57 AM

    The fact that she chose to have that baby shows how little time and money have invested in her. My wife and I have invested more than $250,000 just in our little princess tuition at Chapin and we definitely would have made her have an abortion.

    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/09/2008 11:41:47 AM

      No human being should make anyone have an abortion. It is a horrible statement for a parent to make.. Your obnoxious reference to your daughter as in "our little princess" shows your lack of respect for her. Your statement on making her have an abortion shows your lack of respect for life. Hopefully, your "little princess" moves out and develops more respect for life then her ignorant parent.

      • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/09/2008 1:14:38 PM

        Obviously your children have never attended Chapin. Chapin offers the best private education that money can buy in Manhattan. Its graduates go on to Harvard, Yale, Wiliams, Amherst, and other illustrious instiutions in the East.

        • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/09/2008 2:24:49 PM

          Actually no my daughter never attended Chapin. But did graduate from Franklin and Marshall College, an outstanding first tier private college, with honors, and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Currently she attends an outstanding first tier law school. Hopefully your daughter learned to be a better human being at Chapin then you obviously are. We invested a good deal of money in our daughters education as well. But unlike you we invested in our daughters character. We could not be more proud of her and no we would never ask her to have an abortion.

          • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/09/2008 3:11:33 PM

            Oy vey.

            • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/09/2008 3:56:29 PM

              Go Brearley!

              • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/09/2008 4:25:18 PM

                I also live in Manhattan, and I hate to say it, but the above comments were a bit snooty and paint us in an ugly color. Chapin is not the best, it is one of the best in a sea of many, but putting that aside, I think what should be emphasized here is the fact that many New Yorkers are very proud of the private education system for the exact reason that people like Sarah Palin could never get their meagerly educated hands on it. Where would our children be- where would I be- if she censored what I can read, what I could learn, what subjects are Christian enough??? I would hate to see wonderful teachers loose their job because they refuse to teach creationism in their science class. Education is just one of the many things that will suffer under McCain-Palin.

                • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/10/2008 11:15:07 AM

                  Others states beyone New York have great private education systems. In fact many states like Virginia for instance have some of the best schools in the country. Pennsylvania is a leading state in the number of out of state students coming to their colleges and universities. But what does any of this have to do with how you raise your child or moral decision making. You also state that Sarah Palin would censor books, and determine whether subjects are Christian enough. These lies have already been exposed in the media. Maybe you should research the facts before you make untrue accusations. You assume that anyone that does not go to an ivy league school is meagerly educated. In fact there are many great colleges and universities in this country. You claim the above comments were a bit snooty then offer much of the same. I have friends with degrees from many different institutions. Maybe you need to broaden you horizens a bit. You might find out that all people have something to offer. It seems you are very limited in your perspective. I travel to Manhattan and the surrounding area several times a year for the plays, shopping, museums, sports events etc. I enjoy it very much. I also enjoy the country, mountains and beach areas throughout our country. There is more to the US then New York City.

                  • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/10/2008 3:59:01 PM

                    You automatically assume that I only see the world from the perspective of Manhattan. This is wrong. I also go and see the mountains and beaches around the country, around the world for that matter. Your overzealous attack on my stance has hindered you from seeing my point; I was stating a possible reason why the person had made those comments about private education in New York. I support private education throughout the country, not just in Manhattan, but again for the reasons that I have stated. And I have done my research; maybe it is time for you to open a book yourself. Palin???s position on education and censorship is proven through history, and it is terrifying. And it may come as a shock to you, but I do know people from Franklin and Marshall- which is a very good school. Your attack on me is biased and unfair, simply because we disagree and have differing positions. You feel that a Republican can only see the world from one side, I disagree. For this reason you will probably now understand the above simpleton remark. Actually, maybe I was wrong, maybe education is just better in New York.

                    • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/10/2008 6:50:53 PM

                      Sorry I just can't talk to a person as unreasonable and rude as you. This country needs intelligent discourse. I'll spend my time with those types and not waste any more time corresponding with you.

                      • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/11/2008 10:33:42 AM

                        You are a trip! I???m not being rude- you clearly cannot handle people that have a different perspective than you. How dare you say to me I should broaden my horizons. I have put up with your inept bile, as have many people on this site. What is shocking is that you feel your poorly defended and loosely pieced together arguments could be considered intelligent discourse.

              • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/09/2008 4:20:22 PM

                I also live in Manhattan, and I hate to say it, but the above comments were a bit snooty and paint us in an ugly color. Chapin is not the best, it is one of the best in a sea of many, but putting that aside, I think what should be emphasized here is the fact that many New Yorkers are very proud of the private education system for the exact reason that people like Sarah Palin could never get their meagerly educated hands on it. Where would our children be- where would I be- if she censored what I can read, what I could learn, what subjects are Christian enough??? I would hate to see wonderful teachers loose their job because they refuse to teach creationism in their science class. Education is just one of the many things that will suffer under McCain-Palin.

          • Posted By: arcsc @ 09/09/2008 3:11:03 PM

            Amen! What is with elitism? "Obviously your children have never attended Chapin..." "Shows how little time and money have been invested in her." What, is she a racehorse? I went to public school, where, with effort and merit, graduates can also go on to other "illustrious institutions." My parents pair for my tuition to Emory and then for my tuition at a top tier law school. And had I made an error and gotten pregnant they would have never "made [me]" have an abortion. They would have taken me in and supported me and the baby, and continued to encourage their daughter (as opposed to their investment). You see, my parents have morals. And they invested not only money into my education, but time, love, and a firm understanding of right, wrong, and responsibility. But thanks for sharing what $250K can buy in Manhattan.

  • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/09/2008 10:39:00 AM

    I am appalled by the left's view that women benefit when there are no consequences to their actions. Sometimes when we have trials we actually become stronger. The left also does not consider the emotional trauma that having an abortion can cause later in a women's life. There are many options, other than abortion, available today. I applaud women who choose to respect life. It many not be the easiest way but it is the stronger way. That said I understand in cases of rape, incest, severe birth defects, life of the mother, then exceptions must be available. I feel compassion for the women who have had to decide what path to take when they find themselves pregnant. The author's belief that all women feel one way towards this issue only serves to show her utter disconnect from the average american women. Also it is dangerous for any group to only focus on one issue when considering which candidate is worthy of their support.

    • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/09/2008 3:53:49 PM

      Yes, but so far the right has made abortion their paramount issue. I find this, as a Republican, to be truly appalling. What I also find so appalling by your comment is that you say this entire group at the left feels there are no consequences to their actions. Aside from this gross overgeneralization being completely untrue, maybe the left is aware of the consequences, and that is why they do not act like an idiot and get pregnant in high school.

      • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/10/2008 10:58:40 AM

        Talk about gross generalizations. No one on the left gets pregnant in high school. Give me a break. I really doubt you are a Republican. But I stand corrected I should have said many on the left.

        • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/10/2008 3:50:13 PM

          I am a Republican that cares about other issues (a dwindling number of us are left in this country). You clearly are a simpleton guided only by faith and a narrow perspective of the world. Statistics of teen pregnancy are not on the side of the red. Not so much a gross overgeneralization as a gross fact!

          • Posted By: paproudmom @ 09/10/2008 6:42:34 PM

            I am trying not to laugh. You call people names when you can't find anything intelligent to say. Actually I have my degree from the University of Maryland. I was raised in the Episcopal Church but have been a Lutheran for over 25 years, Those truly are two radical far right denominations. My political opinions are varied. You come across as such a snob and really have no idea what you are talking about.

            • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/11/2008 10:28:48 AM

              Apparently the only thing that makes me a snob is that I have a strong education background and live in New York. That???s a rather unfair accusation, don???t you feel? And talk about not finding anything intelligent to say- your entire previous argument against me was that I am a snob- where is the actual argument? It is just as biased and narrow-minded a perspective of New Yorkers as the misconception you probably have that every New Yorker feels the rest of the country is somehow intellectually incompetent. In fact, in this entire line of arguing the only thing you have done is gone against New Yorkers. You have not presented any argument other than you went to U of M and your child went to Franklin and Marshall- wonderful, but that???s not taking a position on anything, maybe it is just you don???t know what you are talking about- all it shows is that you have some degree of schooling. No one is arguing that fact- but where is the actual display of intelligence? I have presented my view on private education. I agree with Obamas position on charter schooling and his argument for amending the No Child Left Behind Act. I have find McCains past support of No Child Left Behind disturbing, and I find Palins history of intervening with public education terrifying. So now give something worth arguing rather than continuing this pathetic war you have started against New Yorkers.

              Going back to the abortion issue, I agree with you on the fact that people should not choose their candidate based on only one issue. But when I offer up another perspective you get defensive. If you cannot handle people arguing with you, then do not come on sites like this. I am now the one trying not to laugh.

  • Posted By: BobCu @ 09/10/2008 10:44:22 PM

    Of course Bristol wanted to have her baby. Abortion is legal and it should be legal, but only an idiot would kill her own fetus.

  • Posted By: vote4obamanow @ 09/10/2008 6:51:59 PM

    Who wants to adopt a crack baby?.....no one?..ok I thought so..
    Abortions need to remain legal.

  • Posted By: Vaughn09 @ 09/10/2008 6:40:31 PM

    Please find for me just ten women who are over the age of 30 who had an abortion that will say it was a good decision and they would do it again. Good luck

    • Posted By: amycnote @ 09/10/2008 6:57:11 PM

      I'm not sure what your point is about the over 30 thing, but I had an abortion when I was 20 and I'm glad I did it and though it was a traumatic experience, I would definitely do it again - DEFINITELY. Women can make decisions about their bodies and mine was well-informed and MY DECISION. Btw, I started taking birth control after this happened so as not to have to go through anything like that ever again.

  • Posted By: Shannon in FL @ 09/10/2008 2:33:54 PM

    It always amazes me how volatile the pro-lifers get over saving a BABY, but adults can fry for all they're concerned. The fanatics blowing up clinics have killed doctors, women, and the babies they were pregnant with. I am so sick of the hypocrisy of organized religion and everyone's "good intentions".

    This is the thing: I have guns in my home. I was raised hunting and have no problem defending my family should the need arise. But for all those people caught up in Obama's "religion and guns" remark, give me a break. He's talking about the loonies. The nut jobs that cannot and will not listen to anything that doesn't fall within their limited belief system.

    Government should not be involved in religion - and religion has NO PLACE in government.

    Obama/Biden '08 - because it is about REALITY, not what the Republicans tell you is reality. Wake up, America!

  • Posted By: justanothervoice @ 09/09/2008 2:51:53 PM

    Here's a news flash for the person who said - "My "verdict" is Ms.Lithwick is showing her know it all elitism. Bristol's decision is none of her business. Butt out and go away. " EXACTLY!!! Allow me to extend that argument - Not just Bristol but EVERY WOMAN has the same right - its her decision and the state/government/legislature/supreme court/church and million other people should butt out and go away! Thanks for strengthening the pro-choice argument! :)

    • Posted By: plinius_caecilius @ 09/09/2008 3:13:29 PM

      Why don't we just let parents kill their born children as well as their unborn. Oh wait, that's Obama's position already, right?

      • Posted By: dmamara @ 09/10/2008 5:40:54 PM

        If you hadn't noticed people are doing that already. There are the young mothers who throw their newborns in dumpsters, the mothers who drown their kids. Just the other day I read about a woman in Ohio who put her one month old in the microwave. That's right I said MICROWAVE!!! This isn't an issue of Republican vs. Democrat anymore we as a society need to work together to fix this.

  • Posted By: Cate75 @ 09/09/2008 11:24:00 PM

    FOR ALL OF YOU WHO SPEAK OF ABORTION AS IF IT IS MURDER:
    WE HAVE A THING IN OUR COUNTRY CALLED SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AND IT IS BECAUSE OF YOU! IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT WE DO WITH OUR BODIES!!!!!

    • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 09/10/2008 12:46:01 AM

      No..there is no such thing in the USA. the constitution says the government shall not establish a religion.Or abolish free practice.
      The place which had such a seperation was the Soviet Union, which philisophicly justified the abolishment of the free practice.
      Just because Liberals and left-wingers repeat something over and over don't make it true! Abortion sure is murder!
      Americans are a great people. And America a great country! God bless America!

      • Posted By: All's Fair @ 09/10/2008 5:27:40 PM

        You ARE free to practice your religion by not having an abortion. At the same time, you have no right to tell tthe rest of us what to believe or to require us to follow your beliefs. This is a pluralistic society and even we devout Christian disagree on this issue.

      • Posted By: Jose52 @ 09/10/2008 1:30:44 PM

        Great comment. Jefferson and Madison both stated that goverment will not limit the religion in any way. And the libs falsely proclaim this point ; not understanding the basis of the founding fathers's reasoning. Abortion is still the killing of an innocent life and the dems falsely cater to the Fems so as to gain electoral power. May they go into the gates of Hell! Abortion Joe Biden too!

  • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/09/2008 12:34:53 PM

    Why do people focus so much on abortion? Are people unaware of the major issues out there? Seriously, the abortion issue will not determine the fate of this country. If this really is the one issue you are most concerned about- do the country a favor and stay home election day!

    And applaud Bristol all you want, but any good Christian would be condemning the girl as a whore for having that baby underage and out of wedlock. And her mother is the one trying to rid schools of sexual education. Leave it to the parents. Right! She failed her daughter and she will fail the country.

    And one more note for you people that say you support Palin because you can connect with her. Why do you want to someone you feel is your intellectual equivalent running the country? How narcissistic of you! The reason why you are not running for office is because you can???t- so don???t support someone else equally as unqualified. You should hope that those running this country have the highest degree of intelligence, otherwise we end up with a crappy economy, a disastrous war, a polarized country, rapid unemployment, and one of the worst education and medical situations our country has ever faced- all because people would like to have a beer with Bush.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 3:01:03 PM

      Bravo!! I have been saying the exact same to anyone who will listen!!!

    • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 09/09/2008 1:36:21 PM

      Amen!

  • Posted By: jmario @ 09/10/2008 12:26:30 PM

    I'm a pro-choice woman, but the fact of the matter is Roe v. Wade IS flawed. It was one of the most egregious examples of legislating from the bench in our nation's history. Laws are meant to be written by the legislature, not the judiciary. That's one of the most basic tenets of our constitution, and one we should abide by.

    • Posted By: All's Fair @ 09/10/2008 5:15:43 PM

      Actually, under our Constitution, law can be made by all three branches of government--and it is all the time. All the time. Congress has had more than three decades to pass legislation changing Roe v. Wade and has not done it. That says everything one needs to know about how acceptable Roe is to the majority of the nation. Anti-choice voters are outnumbered by pro-choice voters. The anti-choice movement cannot get the Congress to do what it wants, so it has turned to the courts--an ironic attempt to get the judiciary to "legislate".

  • Posted By: granniebutton @ 09/09/2008 11:32:50 AM

    I am sick to death of my country being held hostage to roe v wade. This is 2008 and birth control is everywhere, I see no need for congress to keep holding roe v wade out in front of us like a carrot in front of a horse.The last thought on womens mind these days is abortion. The Democrats need to trade that jackass of a horse in for new ideas and show up for work . And I mean a days for for a days pay.

    • Posted By: dmamara @ 09/10/2008 5:03:54 PM

      The abortion platform does need to be moved to the backburner, it's true. But only because there are more important issues at hand. However, I really hope you were kidding regarding the Democrats needing to work. They do work. I think you meant to say Republicans need to show up to work. I mean our fearless leader, President Bush has had how many vacations since entering office?? I don't know about you, but if I was running the country I certainly wouldn't be on vacation anywhere near as often.

  • Posted By: EE7011 @ 09/09/2008 11:12:34 AM

    I love how many of our former and current presidents and/or candidates can spend all the time in the world discussing abortion rights for women, but I have yet to hear them stand on their podium and tell the young men in this country to keep it in their pants and be responsible! I rarely hear them talk about what it means to be a father, no matter how old you are. The "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" BS of a quote still encourages people to fool around and there will be no consequences, because it's a "secret". what does our country want/expect regarding sex?!

    • Posted By: soggy @ 09/09/2008 11:55:26 AM

      excellent post! You are exactly right. However the pro-choicers have in large part perpetuated this problem. Abortion, the tell us, is the exclusive decision of the mother. Men have no say in what happens to thier potential offspring. This has two bad social affects. It tells men that since this is the exclusive domain of the woman then you have no responsibilty, save financial duty. But even worse is the message to women. What the pro-choice movement tells women, by default, is that they are not as smart as men. You see men are expected to make a decision before there is a baby. They can keep it in their pants or cover it up. Once there is a pregnancy the man has no more choice. Woman are told that they can not be trusted to make a good decision in advance of pregnancy. Forethought is not an option so they must have a way to control their bodies after the pregnancy. In short the pro-choicers tell women that men are capable of forethought and women are not. This is not the self-defeating crap I want for my daughters. or sons. I tell them they are both responsible to make good decisions before a preganancy occurs. I, unlike pro-choicers beleive my girls and boys are both smart enough to make good decisions before there is a baby.

      • Posted By: dmamara @ 09/10/2008 4:50:43 PM

        While I agree with both of you on the point of preventative measures, I can honestly say that I know of several scenarios where the 'father' gets the girl pregnant and then places blame on the mother in a various number of ways. And unfortunately this is a trend that seems to be growing in cities like mine. So maybe we should also be spreading the message about responsibility?

  • Posted By: Honestly22 @ 09/10/2008 4:47:01 PM

    I have three questions:

    Are you pro life?
    Do you believe in God?
    Do you support the welfare system?

    Bill O'Reilly, the media mouthpiece for the Republican party stated on Dec 19, 2007 in discussing the pregnancy of teen ,Jamie Lynn Spears (sister of Britney Spears) said that "the blame falls primarily on the parents, who obviously has little control over her."

    Bill O' Reillys recent stance on teen pregnancy has changed in defense of Palin. His current statement on teen pregnancy is, "as long as society does not have to support the mother, baby or father, it is a personal family matter."

    Now, I am not saying O'Reilly speaks for all Republicans, only that he is a republican mouthpiece.

    It is not even the hypocrisy of these 2 statements that bother me most, it is the statement that "as long as society does not have to support the mother, baby or father", that I find most troubling.
    Translating this into laymans terms means this is a family matter for the rich and not the poor.

    There is something fundamentally wrong with being pro life and against welfare at the same time. Welfare is the only federally funded program available that would support a pro life stance for poor teen mothers that have no or minimal family support. The subsidies reaped from welfare are marginal at best.

    There is something fundamentally wrong with supporting a pro life stance with Gods will. The God I am familiar with, would not condemn poor teen mothers.

    The dilema here is, you don't want these poor teen mothers to have access to abortions, yet if you oppose welfare, there are no provisions available for them to make a pro life decision.

    When the use of God becomes a marketing tool to further a political agenda, it turns into doublespeak and devalues God.

    The intent of this post is to enlighten, it makes no difference to me what your stand is here, only that you "KEEP GOD REAL".

  • Posted By: MarvAlan @ 09/10/2008 4:34:44 PM

    Finally someone who saw the hypocrisy in the "decision" line. But there was another, more sinister, statement in her press release about Bristol???s pregnancy that has yet to be discussed. In her press release Palin said was ???proud??? of her daughter???s "decision" to carry to term, and she also said that she and her husband were "excited and proud" that they were going to become grandparents. Well, if that was really true, why wasn't Levi, the proud father and husband to be, introduced when Palin was introduced by McCain as his VP choice? Bristol was there. Palin introduced all of her children and raved about them. Why didn???t she also say at that time that ???I also want you to know that Todd and I are so proud and excited that we are going to be grandparents, and here is Bristol and her soon to be husband Levi???? The answer is simple. McCain/Rove/Palin made a conscience decision NOT to say this - to wait until they had to make a disclosure (maybe 2 months until after the election?). Announcing the pregnancy when Palin was introduced would have taken away from the ???perfection??? of Palin as the ???perfect??? symbol of parenthood. She and Todd weren???t ???proud??? to become grandparents, they tried to hide it (Why was Bristol holding Trig with a blanket over her stomach? Was it to hide that fact that she was pregnant?). And, people, tell the truth. How ???proud??? of your daughter would you be if she was 17 and came home and told you she was pregnant? How ???happy??? would you be that she was going to get married at 17 to a high school drop-out? How proud and happy would you be to have the young man who had sex with your under-age daughter join your family? That???s not to say that you would not support your daughter and help her anyway you could. But with all due respect, this was not a happy event for the Palin family.

    What I am saying here will be construed as becoming ???personal??? about Palin and bringing her family into the public eye. Beside the fact that she has done that herself, this has nothing to do with the pregnancy, but the integrity of Palin/McCain/Rove in presenting it to the public. The cynical way the Republican???s delayed and then ???disclosed??? the family???s ???joy??? is shameful. This is exactly the kind of deceit we have seen from Bush/Cheney/Rove for 8 years. Oh, yes, there are WMDs in Iraq??? oh, no there are not. The war has been won ??? oh, no it has not. The war will only cost tax payers 90 Billion Dollars ??? oh, no it will cost close to a Trillion Dollars and devastate our economy. Sarah Palin has already joined the Republican ???spin??? club, and she used her daughter???s own pregnancy as her application.

  • Posted By: MarvAlan @ 09/10/2008 4:34:31 PM

    Finally someone who saw the hypocrisy in the "decision" line. But there was another, more sinister, statement in her press release about Bristol???s pregnancy that has yet to be discussed. In her press release Palin said was ???proud??? of her daughter???s "decision" to carry to term, and she also said that she and her husband were "excited and proud" that they were going to become grandparents. Well, if that was really true, why wasn't Levi, the proud father and husband to be, introduced when Palin was introduced by McCain as his VP choice? Bristol was there. Palin introduced all of her children and raved about them. Why didn???t she also say at that time that ???I also want you to know that Todd and I are so proud and excited that we are going to be grandparents, and here is Bristol and her soon to be husband Levi???? The answer is simple. McCain/Rove/Palin made a conscience decision NOT to say this - to wait until they had to make a disclosure (maybe 2 months until after the election?). Announcing the pregnancy when Palin was introduced would have taken away from the ???perfection??? of Palin as the ???perfect??? symbol of parenthood. She and Todd weren???t ???proud??? to become grandparents, they tried to hide it (Why was Bristol holding Trig with a blanket over her stomach? Was it to hide that fact that she was pregnant?). And, people, tell the truth. How ???proud??? of your daughter would you be if she was 17 and came home and told you she was pregnant? How ???happy??? would you be that she was going to get married at 17 to a high school drop-out? How proud and happy would you be to have the young man who had sex with your under-age daughter join your family? That???s not to say that you would not support your daughter and help her anyway you could. But with all due respect, this was not a happy event for the Palin family.

    What I am saying here will be construed as becoming ???personal??? about Palin and bringing her family into the public eye. Beside the fact that she has done that herself, this has nothing to do with the pregnancy, but the integrity of Palin/McCain/Rove in presenting it to the public. The cynical way the Republican???s delayed and then ???disclosed??? the family???s ???joy??? is shameful. This is exactly the kind of deceit we have seen from Bush/Cheney/Rove for 8 years. Oh, yes, there are WMDs in Iraq??? oh, no there are not. The war has been won ??? oh, no it has not. The war will only cost tax payers 90 Billion Dollars ??? oh, no it will cost close to a Trillion Dollars and devastate our economy. Sarah Palin has already joined the Republican ???spin??? club, and she used her daughter???s own pregnancy as her application.

  • Posted By: olivermva @ 09/09/2008 3:14:15 PM

    "In 1973, the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade that the right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

    That would be fine and dandy except for one small caveat: There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Liberal jurists made it up out of thin air. There is this though: ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Roe was a legal travesty. The Founders gave us a framework to solve our disagreements, not a framework to allow one side of an issue to ignore the other side by judicial fiat. Abortion rights should have been decided in state legislatures. Period.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:24:19 PM

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I contend that a womans right to be in control of her womb and make decisious regarding body would fall under the protection of the 4th amendment. If the government decides to lay claim over a womans body, than she cannot be secure in her person; and the government will in essence seize a womans uterus and place it under government domain. Where in the act would violate a womans civil rights to privacy as laid forth in the language of the Bill of Rights.

      • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 3:32:56 PM

        Women have the right to control their bodies and their wombs, but they should not have the right to control the choice of life and death of an innocent baby that is a unique and distinct "body" of its own growing inside the woman's womb. It seems you only want those that have a voice to be allowed to have the right to choose while the innocent voiceless will be left with no choice or rights at all.

        • Posted By: olivermva @ 09/09/2008 3:38:37 PM

          You believe that because you choose to believe it, not because it has any basis in fact.

          • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 3:46:37 PM

            The fact is that a baby growing inside the mother has its own unique finger prints and DNA. By any reasonable standard, that is a distinct human being that should have the same "rights" and "choices" as everyone else.

            • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:01:11 PM

              fingerprints and dna? Yeah, a baby is the combination of the dna of a egg and sperm, its going to have individual dna. However, a fetus doesnt have fingerprints before they have fingers. So, yes, where draw the line?

              • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 4:34:41 PM

                Some deformed babies don't have fingers or hands, but they are still human.

                • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:47:48 PM

                  Now we are dealving into pointless metaphysical banter.

                  • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 4:56:56 PM

                    What you call "pointless metaphysical banter" is the heart of the debate.

                    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 5:08:49 PM

                      I dont recall bringing up the fingerprints or clubhanded infants. Also, i dont think, that, is the crux of the issue; but for arguements sake, its interesting you choose the term "heart", in refeering even to fetuses that hadn't developed a vascular system yet.

                      • Posted By: Anonymous2740 @ 09/10/2008 4:25:04 PM

                        My comment about finger prints and DNA was directed at olvermva who said that my previous comment about a baby being a distinct human being was not based in fact. I was simply pointing out that olvermva's assertion can easily be proven wrong via DNA. This separation of mother from baby is at the heart of the the debate as many want to claim the baby as a part of the mother which is factually incorrect. The baby may be connected to the mother and rely on the mother, but it is a distinct being of its own.

        • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:41:42 PM

          Where in your arguement you conclude that a fetus is a living person, covered under the scope of the U.S. constitution. The fetus is attached to the mother internally, and until the third trimester, is, save for extrodinary occasions, unable to survive independent of the mothers physical connection. So at what point does this living organism become "human"? My contention, is that late term abortions are largely illegal as it is. So where is the spliting point between being part of the mother and under the personal haven of ones person, and hen does the fetus become seperate from the mother and covered by the rights of an individual?

          • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 3:53:16 PM

            The taking of human life is murder and it is illegal, but somehow some have fooled themselves into believing a fetus or immature baby is not human just because it is immature. Why draw the line there? Why not allow parents to abort children up until puberty?

            As I said to another poster, you can fool yourself all day long with semantics, but at the end of the day we all know that abortion is nothing more than the taking of innocent human life regardless of how mature that life is.

            • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:02:11 PM

              Actually the semantics line was also to me, just on another comment.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse