Bristol's Choice

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: humbird59 @ 09/09/2008 10:18:59 AM

    I'm a Republican, and I disagree with the traditional conservative Republican view of a complete ban on abortions. Rape and incest are most certainly considerations. And I am sick and tired of elections being based on a single or even a few issues. Basically, Democrats believe in big government to solve the problems of the populace. Republicans believe in smaller government and help to those who need it and not handing out to everyone just because they do not want to be selfsupporting.

    • Posted By: dmamara @ 09/10/2008 4:20:35 PM

      REPUBLICANS believe in HELPING???? Well I suppose you're right, they do believe in helping, so long as you're rich and/or big business. Then they can't help you enough. However for those of us that don't live in upper crust America, Republicans could care less. If they were so conscious about wanting to help people who need it as you claim, then where were they when Hurricane Katrina hit? Where are they now, when the economy is in crisis because of our current leader?

    • Posted By: prip @ 09/09/2008 11:39:00 AM

      Wow I really missed how government was made smaller these past 8 years. Wake up! Your perception of Republican government does not align with the reality.

  • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 3:15:13 PM

    Abortion is not an issue involving the "trusting" of women, or treating them like "girls," or any other off-base, condescending tripe. Abortion is about the ending of a viable innocent baby's life. Aside from rare exceptions, this should never be a choice. It certainly shouldn't be a choice for women who have had "unintended" pregnancies. Unless the woman did not agree to sex, the possibility of getting pregnant is implied regardless if an attempt at prevention was made. Abortion is not birth control for the lazy or hurt. It is cold, calculated murder.


    Most abortions are motivated by simple and selfish convenience. We should all be able to agree that the killing of an innocent baby by this motivation is wrong and should be illegal. When a woman takes on the responsibility of having sex she is also implicitly taking on the responsibility of the possibility of getting pregnant. When a woman becomes pregnant she may continue to make choices for her body and her life, but she should not be allowed to make choices that adversely affect the other unique and distinct "body" that is growing inside her, such as death.


    In the cases of rape and incest, as disgusting, unjust, and ugly rape and incest are, we should not take out our ire on the innocent. The baby growing inside the mother had nothing to do with its horrific conception and therefore, should not be punished by death. The mother is misdirecting her anger and hurt over what has happened to her at an innocent baby that never hurt anyone. We should provide much counselling and support to women in these situations to help them endure until the baby can be born at which point it can be kept or put up for adoption. I know this is a very sensitive topic and that many will likely disagree, but we still need to stand up for the innocent child caught up in such ugly circumstances.


    In the case of the mother's health, if it is a choice between the mother and the child, I think it is fair that the mother and/or family decide. In this case, one life is going to end no matter what. Politicians, doctors, and other outsider should not be deciding who will live and who will die.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:30:10 PM

      So by your opinion, all individuals should have to live under a ideology that you personal hold true. I'm not sure how it is reasonable to lay claim over people's lives in order to cement your desires on society. I respect your right to your opinion, and your right to apply it to your own life, but that in no way justifies mandating that it be honored as rule for everyone else in society.

      • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 3:38:07 PM

        Ah, so if I don't like someone or if someone becomes too "inconvenient" for me I should be allowed to murder them because that is my belief or "opinion." We both know that is ridiculous, but that is exactly what you are advocating with abortion. 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 life regardless of how mature that life is.

        • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:47:17 PM

          Half of society disagrees with you, smantics or not. Perhaps you should just do whats right for you in terms of controlling your uterus. This subject is a philisophical one. Its between a side who believes they are fighting for individual autonomy and a side that believes they are fighting for what their theology preaches. Rationality has gone largely by the wayside in this realm of morality.

          • Posted By: Dantebenuto @ 09/09/2008 4:01:09 PM

            how can you in one breath support removing a woman's right to "play god" with her body, but also be in support of playing "god" by death penalty for criminals? yet another double standard...

            • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 4:31:39 PM

              Simple. The baby is innocent and the murderer is not.

              • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:44:11 PM

                Yes, but the concept of being pro-life is in itself philisophically opposed to that rationale

                • Posted By: Anonymous2740 @ 09/10/2008 4:14:53 PM

                  I mentioned this in another comment, but I am pro-innocent-life. So, my rationale still stands.

          • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 3:57:57 PM

            You are wrong there. I'm agnostic (leaning toward atheism) and haven't practiced religion since my childhood. This is a matter of human rights and decency. If you are reasonable about the subject and believe murder should be illegal, you should also be against abortion. Regardless of religion, everyone should stand up for the voiceless innocent.

            • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:46:05 PM

              Yes, however, i'm not sure what the stats are, but i dare say that the vast majority hold these beliefs with a basis in theology.

              • Posted By: youmustbejoking @ 09/10/2008 10:53:37 AM

                maybe you should address some of your anger at theology if that is your argument all the time. These folks are talking about a decency everyone should be regarded with. You may one day be on the receiving end of said decency, or may need someone to show you some decency towards a loved one who cannot protect themselves. Same goes for everyone regardless of whether or not they are in the womb or not. Young children and the elderly and the list goes on. Perhaps if they all become "inconvenient" we should do away with them...? let go of your theology. the basis here should be humanity.

                " First they came for the Jews
                and I did not speak out
                because I was not a Jew.
                Then they came for the Communists
                and I did not speak out
                because I was not a Communist.
                Then they came for the trade unionists
                and I did not speak out
                because I was not a trade unionist.
                Then they came for me
                and there was no one left
                to speak out for me." *Martin Niemöller

  • Posted By: milsgb @ 09/09/2008 4:30:49 PM

    For all those against abortion, how many of you are personally rushing out to adopt these unfortunately unwanted children? Fight for them in the womb, but let society abandon them once they're born. After all, then they just become dreaded recipients of handouts, right?

    • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 4:38:58 PM

      "Society" didn't abandon them, their mother and father did.

      If chronic "unintended" pregnancies became a problem for a particular mother, they could be offered the "choice" of sterilization.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:41:45 PM

        Yeah, i recall the Nazis were all for that.

        • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 5:11:31 PM

          I said "choice." I don't think the Nazis were into giving people options.

          • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 5:20:34 PM

            I disagree, they were all about choice: Get on the train, or get shot in the head. Breath in the gas, or don't breath at all. Stay here and be persocuted to the point of extermination, or try to get away.
            Those are all choices. Or are they? Really they are the illusion of choice. Which is sort of like what is going on here. They refer to Bristol's "choice"; whereas, if anti-abortion advocates got there way, would not be a choice. It woud be a: have the baby, or dont have the baby, perform an abortion yourself, and be imprisoned. Once again, the illusion of choice.

            • Posted By: Anonymous2740 @ 09/10/2008 4:10:11 PM

              Of course, those aren't real choices or the kind of choice I was talking about. I would never support our forcing sterilization on another human being, but I would support giving them the choice of prison or sterilization after a certain number of "unintended" pregnancies were left to society to care for. At some point, society has to say enough is enough and the way to do that isn't through abortion, but through sterilization or prison.

      • Posted By: milsgb @ 09/09/2008 4:44:14 PM

        Their mother and father may have decided they couldn't provide for the child, so put them up for adoption. Isn't that one of the better choices that everyone on both sides agrees to? So if they are exercising that choice, then where are all of you to support those children once they're here?

        • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 5:08:27 PM

          My abandon comment was directed at milsgb's comment. Don't blame society for abandoning a child they aren't responsible for in the first place. Society may take care of the child, but that child's parents did the abandoning.

          What you call "couldn't provide" I call irresponsible sex and abandonment.

          • Posted By: milsgb @ 09/09/2008 7:09:09 PM

            I would argue that those who opt for adoption are usually doing so because they hope their child will have a better life with good adoptive parents, not because they callously abandon their children. That is what I consider to be a responsible choice. Let me clarify: when many of these children aren't being adopted, are being bounced between foster homes (some of which are abusive situations) or being thrown into under-funded group homes, that's what I call abandonment by society. Again, no answers to the original question - How many of you are personally rushing out to adopt these children? How many of you consider them "not our responsibility"? If you want abortion to stop, what is supposed to happen when "life happens" according to Palinites? If you aren't willing to make unadopted children your responsibility and thumb your noses at those who "abandon" their children through adoption, aren't you then taking adoption off the table as a choice too? Yes, let's force financially unprepared parents to take care of unexpected "life happens" children. Great way to expand the welfare population you despise so much. Where is the fight to protect innocent life once they are here? Where is the walk for all your talk?

            • Posted By: Anonymous2740 @ 09/10/2008 4:03:28 PM

              While putting a kid up for adoption is definitely the more "responsible" alternative to just killing it, but you aren't going to convince me or anyone else reasonable that it is "responsible" to have a kid that you can't provide for. That is the epitome of selfish irresponsibility.

              Another thing, one doesn't need to adopt a child to maintain that innocent babies shouldn't be killed. It would help those that have irresponsible sex, get pregnant, and then dump the responsibility of the child on society, but it isn't a requirement.

              Using your logic, we should just kill all the homeless because no one wants to take care of them (including themselves by the way).

      • Posted By: youmustbejoking @ 09/10/2008 10:32:38 AM

        well stated!

  • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:51:22 PM

    Here's a quesion, contingent on your stance as being pro-life, and not relating to abortion: Would you take the life of Osama Bin Laden given the chance; or Adolf Hitler had you been in the position to do so?

    • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 5:09:58 PM

      Maybe I should clarify. I'm pro innocent life. Hitler and Bin Laden aren't innocent and deserve death.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 5:13:29 PM

        I appreciate your amendment of title, perhaps more in the "pro-life" community should do that as well. However (not refering to you, as you hold no secular beliefs), "thou shalt not kill", offers no wiggle room for justification.

        • Posted By: AMiddleClassRepub @ 09/09/2008 5:41:23 PM

          Actually, properly translated, it is thou shalt not murder. There are many instances where killing was justified in the Old Testament of the Bible.

          • Posted By: Matt01 @ 09/10/2008 4:01:21 PM

            The greatest disservice to humanity was when the Bible was translated into English and everyone was suddenly free to interpret it.!And by the way the old testament is not your text-thats for the jews -you are supposed to follow tthe new testament if you are christian -otherwise you should also follow kosher practises and not eat pork like in the old testament

          • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 7:03:03 PM

            Properly translated? Thats like saying the founding fathers never envisioned assault rifles in the days of muskets!! No one can properly translate the bible; and refer me to a copy that says, "thou shall not murder". You've got to be kidding me, properly translated.

    • Posted By: marcharino @ 09/09/2008 5:40:41 PM

      The very short answer is that I, as a Pro-Life advocate, would not take the life of an Islamic militant or genocidal madmen, like Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler respectively. The longer explanation for my rationale is that most Pro-lifers who belief in the sanctity of life (both the born and unborn) do not endorse the taking of life ("murder") or the killing of another human being without a reasonable due process for executing the consequences of the lawlessness. Laws are for the lawless (Biblical quote) and our laws are based on the legal system of justice derived from Biblical and societal standards. Certainly, to have found Adolf Hitler, prosecuted and convicted him of the 6.5 million genocidal deaths of the Jewish people, then society has it justification for the retribution of his crime: sometimes a sentence of death (e.g. the killing of that guilty individual). Now, to get to your REAL question of how the taking of a life relates to the crux of the abortion matter. Pro-life advocates believe that life is God-given, and that the innocent unborn baby's life and eternal destiny are not to be determined by the parents, the father, the carrying mother, or even the physician. Although you may suggest that because of one's unwillingness to take the life of a dictator or terrorist, that individual would be allowing the murder of thousands or millions of people (9-11 or the holocaust), I believe that without the moral and societal justification, the action would be paramount to murdering unjustifiably. In God's sight, that individual is as guilty of violating the sanctity of life as the mass-murderer or terrorist with bloodied hands from killing the innocent. Abortion is the killing of an innocent life that was given life, body, soul and spirit by God.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 7:16:04 PM

        I appreciate the time and thought you put into your response, and i hope you understand the context in which the question ws posed; however, the Commandment as put forth in the bible is not open to interpretation. The whole, "proper translation" thing is about as arogant as you can get (notfrom you, but from others.). It is obserd to claim anything as a "proper translation of the bible, as if to say, "what god meant was.....". I dare say Moses wasnt up on the mountain asking, "hey lord, what precisley do ya mean by that whole not killing thing, it's a little to vague.". I get what you're saying, but if your against taking life, there can be no, "yeah. but....".

        • Posted By: youmustbejoking @ 09/10/2008 10:31:16 AM

          the commandments my not be open to question, but anyone that knows the bible and its history knows that the bible was written long after Jesus had died on the cross and it contains STORIES designed TO MAKE A POINT. The stories are not necessarily literal. They were written to get the idea across in a way the writers thought people would understand. Therefore anyone that takes the Bible TOO literal is the one who doesn't understand it.

  • Posted By: lizzybrown65 @ 09/10/2008 9:33:47 AM

    It is very unlikely that a 17 year old would have a baby with Down's Syndrome. If you do your research, actually do your research, you will discover that babies with Down Syndrom are those with moms in their upper 30's and 40's.

    • Posted By: Matt01 @ 09/10/2008 3:33:58 PM

      No actually there are more young women having babies with Downs etc because more young women have babies

  • Posted By: uuforyou @ 09/08/2008 3:09:52 PM

    Palin is the illusion.
    www.impalin.com

    • Posted By: Jose52 @ 09/10/2008 3:22:47 PM

      Just like the messiah obambi? Gallup now says McCain is up 48% to 43%. Again white women now doubt barry and his illusions. You're having illusions by not believing this poll. Go Sarah 2012!

  • Posted By: baybluv @ 09/09/2008 5:36:45 PM

    I say when is Bristol getting married, she's already five months along. What are they waiting for? I don't believe this boy is going to marry her and he's was probably paid to make appearances with her as the poster teens for pre-marital sex during the convention. The Republicans are such hypocrites.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/10/2008 8:00:49 AM

      I believe he was strong-armed, too. His myspace page certainly showed that he's an immature, redneck boy not ready to be married or have children. That was taken down quickly...

      • Posted By: Shannon in FL @ 09/10/2008 3:09:49 PM

        I was also amazed how quickly it was removed, likely due to the "doesn't want kids" info there. That poor girl...I hope the decision truly was hers, and not something being used to forward Sarah Palin's political future.

        According to Snopes.com, there is a lot more truth out there than people want to believe. Don't just believe the MSM...check facts yourself! Do the homework and be informed on election day!

        Obama/Biden '08

  • Posted By: bammer @ 09/09/2008 6:40:00 PM

    TO: NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, CT, WP, Newsweek, Atlantic Weekly, LAT---

    WHAT MAKES YOU WORTHY OF TELLING US WHAT YOU THINK?

    The Main Stream Media should be ASHAMED AS HELL OF ITSELF; but, we know, it has NO SHAME!!! It NOW thinks it should get involved in the vetting of a VP, while it GAVE A SHAMELESS PASS to OBAMA for the PRESIDENTIAL SLOT.

    So you think giving SOFTBALL questions to OBAMA in the debates proves anything. Do you think not tracking down his associations, record, accomplishments or lack thereof proves anything? Do you think that attacking a 17 YEAR OLD GIRL of a candidate AND THE CANDIDATE HERSELF MAKES YOU WORTHY OF TELLING US WHAT YOU THINK?

    It proves that the MSM is trying as hard as we have ever seen to CONTROL an election like a Chicago Party Machine, or a government controled, Banana Repubic press.

    The MSM press has been disgraceful and there has been and will continue to be a decline of the MSM into tabloid, celebrity, and sexism journalism.

    With some MSM outlets like NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, CT, WP, Newsweek, Atlantic Weekly, LAT, and others becoming tabloids following DailyKos, MoveOn.org, and HuffingtonPost, the vast majority of normal, middle class, independent/moderate WILL BE SICK OF YOU.

    ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

    WHAT MAKES YOU WORTHY OF TELLING US WHAT YOU THINK?

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 7:25:19 PM

      I find it interesting you didnt put FoxNews in your condemnation of the press. Can i assume that it was a simple oversight?

      • Posted By: footballmom @ 09/10/2008 12:48:56 PM

        Seriously....Obama and all the other candidates were put through the ringer. I know I've received countless emails claiming the "truth about Obama" so don't claim he's been thrown softballs. He inspires people just like Palin does. So why can't she answer questions like the other candidates. She sure throws some zingers at everyone else -- but is quick to hide behind her fellow party members when something is said back to her.

        • Posted By: Shannon in FL @ 09/10/2008 3:05:02 PM

          Damn right - Obama did NOT get a pass...and is still being worked over regarding every single word that leaves his mouth. I love that people are placing Sarah Palin in the "victim" column, while they likely forwarded some of the hate emails that circulated about Obama. I also love that HIllary Clinton was under a microscope for not only HER ACTIONS, but the actions of every person she'd ever done business with, been friends with, etc...but Sarah Palin is off limits?

          What is going on? Why is Sarah Palin being shielded from the public. I don't care what a right-winger you are, surely even YOU want to know where she stands? Or the fact that she's a religious nut and pro-lifer all that really matters?

          This is why I do not participate in organized religion anymore...there is no end to the irrational behavior committed on behalf of "God" - that likely would slap all of your for your arrogance. Give. Me. A. Break.

          Grow up...vote Obama/Biden '08

  • Posted By: pnkearns @ 09/09/2008 2:41:24 PM

    Let me understand Ms. Dahlia Lithwick' "verdict" ... she's pro-abortion (her choice), but Sarah Palin's pro-life views are somehow forcing/harassing/pressuring her 17 year old daughter Bristol into deciding to have her "gasp" child.

    It couldn't be that Bristol made up here own mind to have her child...? Nah. It couldn't be that Bristol was raised by parents that believe, and practice, pro-life and would support her...? Nah. It couldn't be that the father of her child is willing to marry and support the child...? Nah. It couldn't be that the Palin extended family and friends are there for support...? Nah. It couldn't be that Bristol, as the rest of her family, is a Evangelist Christian, who grew up in a Church where pro-life is the view and supported....? Nah. It couldn't be Bristol, grew up in small town where religion and pro-life views are still valued and supported....? Nah.

    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.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 2:55:15 PM

      Perhaps your ranting and raving can yield some introspective thought. Can you see the furvor on the other side of the issue, or are you so encompassed by your side that you cant accept that as many people disagree with you as do agree with you?

      • Posted By: pnkearns @ 09/09/2008 3:12:34 PM

        I have no problem with a woman's right to choose. I have no problem with Dahila Lithwick writing an article opposing McCain/Palin's abortion views. I do have a problem when Ms. Lithwick inserts herself and freely uses the personal decision of a 17 year old and her family. She's using Bristol Palin. She's using a minor. She would never do that to a person on her side of the issue.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 3:16:27 PM

          Oh please. Palin is using her own daughter AND her son Trig for sympathy votes...and those are her own children!

          • Posted By: pnkearns @ 09/09/2008 3:26:23 PM

            The title of the article is "Bristol's Choice".

            • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/10/2008 8:05:43 AM

              Do you really believe it was her choice?

              • Posted By: Jose52 @ 09/10/2008 3:01:40 PM

                As for Lithwick's article, I thought Obambi stated lay off family. Lithwick and MSM think so highly of him, however since it sells liberal papers, then they don't follow his requests. All of you are denigrating a family. How proud should all of you be of yourselves discussing Trig and Bristol lives? You're all bullies!

  • Posted By: ajkriv @ 09/10/2008 2:56:17 PM

    this is an excellent article.

  • Posted By: fox610 @ 09/10/2008 10:28:31 AM

    McCain's choice for VP should of offened women. Thinking he can appiont a female just to get the Hillary supporters. I thought women had evolved, I guess I was wrong. For women supporters of Hillary ,not to vote
    for Obama because he didn't pick her for VP, proves as women we still act on emotion and are easily
    manipulated. What they need to understand is ,they are not hurting Obama by not voting for him, they are
    hurting themselves, their children ,grandchildren and their futures. Get off your emotional rollercoasters and
    do the right thing.

    • Posted By: Shannon in FL @ 09/10/2008 2:41:12 PM

      Well said. Voting for her because she has the same equipment is outright STUPIDITY. Yes, I'm a woman. Yes, I vote. Yes, I'm smart enough to view Sarah Palin as a ploy to lure the simpletons away from the issues. Don't be persuaded because she's "pretty" and religious...FOLLOW THE ISSUES.

      Vote Obama/Biden '08

    • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/10/2008 10:31:29 AM

      Is that the sound of Bella Abzug rolling in her grave?

  • Posted By: villiefried @ 09/10/2008 1:24:38 PM

    I???m scared. I???m scared of Senator McCain and Gov. Palin . . . not really. I???m not scared of them personally. I???m scared of what they could do to this country. Really. I???m scared that a whole lot of people are ignoring or not even bothering to find out that McCain votes against increasing and creating benefits for veterans; supports a tax policy that maintains the burden on the working poor and middle class while benefiting the rich; that Palin hates homosexuals, books, and polar bears; that she lied to her party and the American people during her speech . . . that people will vote for this ticket because there???s a woman on it, that people don???t know that drilling for oil in Alaska and on the shelf will not yield usable gasoline for 7 to 10 years and WILL harm the environment. I???m scared that millions of disadvantaged children will never see the inside of a University, that we will attack Iran and Russia, that jobs will continue to go over-seas, that our constitutional rights will be further diminished, that corporations will continue to take jobs away from hardworking Americans, that fraud will reign supreme as it has and as it did in the 1980s (McCain was fully supportive of Charles Keating by the way), that women will no longer have reproductive freedom, that extremist Christianity will take hold and fester and ruin this country . . . I???m scared of continuing this list. Why aren???t other???s scared? Why are people enamored with a person who has lied to them? How could people stand with someone who smiled and proudly and confidently lied that she sold a jet on ebay when, in fact, she hadn???t sold it on ebay and took a loss on it as well? Why would someone stand with someone who opposes abortion but refuses to fund commonsense programs to prevent teen pregnancies? It???s too much. These two praise federal aid to the poor of foreign countries but disdain federal aid to help the poor of THIS country. What is it? Are costumes THAT convincing? Killers wear masks. Are you scared? You should be; but more than that you should be scared and THINKING. As a woman, I am appalled that women would vote for this ticket with this woman on it knowing or not knowing, whatever the case may be, that she is dangerous. If they win and we get four more years of heartbreak you will only have yourselves to blame. What then? Will it be too late? This election is too important to get behind some kind of schoolyard contest between the boys and the girls ??? just because there???s a girl to take on the boys. This will affect people???s lives, your lives. Is your life, your children???s lives, your love???s, your friends???, your family???s worth nothing compared to ???just getting a woman in there??? no matter how awful she is? Please think about this.

  • Posted By: villiefried @ 09/10/2008 1:22:48 PM

    I???m scared. I???m scared of Senator McCain and Gov. Palin . . . not really. I???m not scared of them personally. I???m scared of what they could do to this country. Really. I???m scared that a whole lot of people are ignoring or not even bothering to find out that McCain votes against increasing and creating benefits for veterans; supports a tax policy that maintains the burden on the working poor and middle class while benefiting the rich; that Palin hates homosexuals, books, and polar bears; that she lied to her party and the American people during her speech . . . that people will vote for this ticket because there???s a woman on it, that people don???t know that drilling for oil in Alaska and on the shelf will not yield usable gasoline for 7 to 10 years and WILL harm the environment. I???m scared that millions of disadvantaged children will never see the inside of a University, that we will attack Iran and Russia, that jobs will continue to go over-seas, that our constitutional rights will be further diminished, that corporations will continue to take jobs away from hardworking Americans, that fraud will reign supreme as it has and as it did in the 1980s (McCain was fully supportive of Charles Keating by the way), that women will no longer have reproductive freedom, that extremist Christianity will take hold and fester and ruin this country . . . I???m scared of continuing this list. Why aren???t other???s scared? Why are people enamored with a person who has lied to them? How could people stand with someone who smiled and proudly and confidently lied that she sold a jet on ebay when, in fact, she hadn???t sold it on ebay and took a loss on it as well? Why would someone stand with someone who opposes abortion but refuses to fund commonsense programs to prevent teen pregnancies? It???s too much. These two praise federal aid to the poor of foreign countries but disdain federal aid to help the poor of THIS country. What is it? Are costumes THAT convincing? Killers wear masks. Are you scared? You should be; but more than that you should be scared and THINKING. As a woman, I am appalled that women would vote for this ticket with this woman on it knowing or not knowing, whatever the case may be, that she is dangerous. If they win and we get four more years of heartbreak you will only have yourselves to blame. What then? Will it be too late? This election is too important to get behind some kind of schoolyard contest between the boys and the girls ??? just because there???s a girl to take on the boys. This will affect people???s lives, your lives. Is your life, your children???s lives, your love???s, your friends???, your family???s worth nothing compared to ???just getting a woman in there??? no matter how awful she is? Please think about this.

  • Posted By: An American Woman @ 09/09/2008 1:58:16 PM

    When a young woman discovers she is pregnant, she had many "choices" to make. Will it be best to keep the child and raise this little one, or give the baby up for adoption? Should she attempt to raise the child as a single mother, or should she get married to the baby's father? Should she tell her parents, and make the whole situation public, or should she handle it alone?

    Throughout the world, and the United States, all mothers deal with "choices" regarding their children. Should she work right now? What is the best choice for the care of the children . . . and schooling . . . and the future? How does a mom balance her own goals and personal plans, with the needs of her family. Should any mother have the freedom to abandon her children, to abuse them, or (as in the reality of abortion) to "eliminate" them . . . merely for the sake of her own confort or ambitions?

    Of course not.

    When a woman becomes pregnant, there is suddenly another "person" to consider. Even in the worst of situations, there are many choices a woman must make; however, our Constitution has declared certain truths to be self-evident and totally obvious. We ALL (including the littlest and most helpless of people) have certain unalienable rights . . . and among these are LIFE.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 2:08:51 PM

      Where does it define "human"? Does it somewhere state that at the moment of conception the organism is "human" and covered by the rights garunteed by the constitution?

      Also, i would ask you t study a little bit of law, because if you do, you will come to an amazing realization: Minors are not afforded the same rights and protections as adults.

      • Posted By: somebunny @ 09/09/2008 5:04:43 PM

        So you are saying that when the human male sperm enters the human female egg, there's a chance that it might become something other than human?

        • Posted By: footballmom @ 09/10/2008 1:06:58 PM

          After reading some of the comments, I would say there's a chance that sometimes the result is not human.

      • Posted By: BigD9999 @ 09/09/2008 3:12:49 PM

        I think you missed the point. The first choice or decision should whether or not to have sex and secondly whether or not to use birth control. All the other decisions come after two people get naked and make a decision.

  • Posted By: fox610 @ 09/10/2008 10:12:54 AM

    McCain's choice for VP should of offened women. Thinking he can appiont a female just to get the Hillary supporters. I thought women had evolved, I guess I was wrong. For women supporters of Hillary ,not to vote
    for Obama because he didn't pick her for VP, proves as women we still act on emotion and are easily
    manipulated. What they need to understand is ,they are not hurting Obama by not voting for him, they are
    hurting themselves, their children ,grandchildren and their futures. Get off your emotional rollercoasters and
    do the right thing.

    • Posted By: liddykitty @ 09/10/2008 10:29:04 AM

      Not that I agree with your remark but as a former constituent of Obama's, I can't say that he has done anything great for the state of Illinois, so maybe you could please tell me why someone would vote for him? He saw fit to vote present so much, instead of making a decision that I am wondering how he could be ready to make decisions for the entire US. Please I really would like to know because as a lower income parent his talk sounds good.

      One other question I would have... I do not mind a black person as a cantidate "Colin Powell" is great I'd vote for him in a minute. But why should I vote in a prejudice First Lady?

      • Posted By: footballmom @ 09/10/2008 12:57:01 PM

        You don't "mind" a black person as president? Well that's mightly nice of you.....

  • Posted By: Tominator @ 09/10/2008 12:45:01 PM

    Lets see, discussions with parents should never happen. Good idea from your point of view. That is why so many of the minority children end up dead before they get a chance to live. They die from abortion and then they die from gunshot wounds after birth or they die in prison. No supervision, no discipline and no parental discussion sure is effective. It all starts with no respect for life. You just do not get it.

  • Posted By: rf1978 @ 09/10/2008 12:26:24 PM

    I belive Palin is a very dangerous woman and we should be looking at her track record and not at how she can field dress a moose, and how pretty you think she is. The fact is she preaches abstinence and her 17 year old daughter is pregnant! That speaks volumes of her parenting skills. She has no business running for VP she should be at home being a parent to her kids, because it is apparent the need one

    Obama in 2008!

  • Posted By: robt55 @ 09/10/2008 9:49:29 AM

    I have a novel thought for all of you who relish the opportunity to show your independence and freedom by sucking the brains from the skulls of the unborn. If women had greater self respect, the belief that they could achieve reasonable goals, along with highly visible, highly accomplished role models, just possibly their now wasted time would be spent pursuing dreams.
    Imagine that; if you are a young girl with real, achievable dreams and viable opportunities just maybe you wouldn't be inclined to build your self esteem through your boyfriend???s accomplishments or worse yet, spread your legs for every guy who walks down the street. With dreams a possibility, he now might interfere with your hearts deepest desires. BTW, I am the father of two daughters who are pursuing their dreams by attending Bryn Mawr College on music scholarships.

    • Posted By: footballmom @ 09/10/2008 12:18:36 PM

      Really?! Do you think everyone lives in your world? You have no idea what a woman goes through in making this decision. It's great that you raised such wonderful daughters -- are you saying there's something wrong with Palin's daughter because she got pregnant? Or was Palin a bad parent because her daughter couldn't keep her legs closed?

  • Posted By: Shannon in FL @ 09/10/2008 12:13:48 PM

    Thank you for this article. I've been having this discussion a lot lately with friends and co-workers. My position is that (whether or not you agree with abortion) when the choice is taken from you about one thing regarding YOUR BODY, where does it stop? If doctors and clergy and legislators all have the right to make decisions about our bodies, what prevents us from sliding down the slippery slope? Today, we can't be trusted to make informed decisions about being pregnant...should we be allowed to vote? To work outside the home? To get divorced?

    The radical right doesn't realize that when you give the government power over one thing, it is increasingly difficult to retain power over anything else. I do not think abortion is something I would choose for myself. However, the choice should be there, whether or not you EVER use it.

    I've known women who use abortion as a form of birth control, which I find disgusting. I also have a sister who was raped in college and had an abortion. She showed "signs of depression", too...because of the trauma she'd gone through. She eventually married and had a child, and is a devoted member of her church. She does not regret the decision she made and would never vote for someone who would have insisted she carry a rapist's child in her body.

    I am a woman. I am a mother. I am a wife. I believe in God and the United States of America. I work hard and our family is considered 'middle class'. I believe in a woman's right to choose...because if we can be trusted to VOTE, we can be trusted to make decisions about our BODIES.

    I'm pro-choice and I vote.
    OBAMA/BIDEN '08

  • Posted By: cuppa jo @ 09/10/2008 12:13:19 PM

    Stop trying to scare people. Roe vs. Wade has survived through rep administrations before, why would it change now? You don't like Palin b/c she is not a LIBERAL.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse