Bristol's Choice

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: m.nolan @ 09/09/2008 2:51:33 PM

    Have McCain/Palin REALLY said that women only have one choice? It seems to me that when Gov. Palin was asked, on two separate ocassions, to sign legislation limiting abortion rights she tabled them and worked on issues effecting the economy instead. Her first veto as Governor killed a bill denying gays their rights. If there's anything I've learned from living in Washington, D.C. for 20 years is that it's what the politician does not what she says. I am a pro-choice Hillary supporter who will be voting for McCain and Palin because I think they will bring reform and change and I am not worried about Roe v. Wade being dismantled. There will be an overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress who will push back on far-right judges picks (if indeed, McCain puts up those type of judges at all). McCain has earned the right to be president Barack Obama has not.

    • Posted By: strawberrynote @ 09/09/2008 7:08:30 PM

      I live in Alaska. Palin has only been in office a short time and there were bigger things on the legislative plate than anti-abortion legislation. The AK Supreme Court had consistently held that gay partners had rights to state benefits, but Palin and the Republican led legislature kept trying to deny it with numerous legal challenges. Finally, after they had exhausted all options of trying to defy the court, she acquiesced. She deserves no credit for rights in the least.

  • Posted By: Alivegarden @ 09/09/2008 6:58:30 PM

    Frankly, maybe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, then the Republicans will lose the ultimate wedge issue that they've been riding for the last thirty years. Once that's out of the way, all the religious nuts in this country will actually have to consider other issues that may be important, like perhaps the environment, Republican de-regulation freeing up corporate scumbags to swarm to cheap, oversees labor, a monstrous deficit and billion-dollar waste of blood and treasure in Iraq in the wake of the Bush terms, and a government run by corporate lobbyists whose pursuit of profits DO NOT always equate to public good. That said, I fully respect a person's right to believe in whatever relgion they chose, but I DO NOT respect when these people attempt to legislate their beliefs into law, forcing non-religious citizens like myself and many others to put up with the results of their often irrational beleifs. If evangelicals want to belive that God is going to rapture only Republicans, fine, but don't force me to accept that through legislation.

  • Posted By: Truthyness @ 09/09/2008 6:56:23 PM

    Didn't Bristol get her abstinence pamphlet?

  • Posted By: LuvBama @ 09/09/2008 6:06:51 PM

    Is this Sara Palin's fault too. Before you left wingers piss off even more people you better read the stats on teenage pregnancy nationwide. You all are dopes. According to Web MD:

    April 7, 2008 ??? The teen birth rate in the U.S. rose for the first time in 14 years in 2006, and the number of cesarean deliveries and births to unmarried women hit all-time highs, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

    Teen childbirths rose by 3% in 2006, to about 42 births for every 1,000 females between the ages of 15 and 19.

    That was up from 40.5 births per 1,000 in 2005, but still well below the 62 births per 1,000 recorded in 1991, when teen birth rates began their decade-plus decline.

    About 20,000 more births were recorded among teens in the U.S. in 2006 than the previous year, with a 5% increase seen among African-American teens, a 3% increase among non-Hispanic whites, and a 2% increase among Hispanics.

    While it is too early to say if the rise represents the beginning of a trend, Stephanie J. Ventura, who heads the NCHS reproductive statistics branch, says it is cause for concern.

    "This could continue or it could reverse, but it is not the direction we want to see," she tells WebMD.

    • Posted By: Truthyness @ 09/09/2008 6:55:20 PM

      So much for giving up birth control and relying on abstinence pamphlets. Way to go dumb asses.

  • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 09/08/2008 3:52:28 PM

    how dare anyone tell anyone else what to do with they're bodies or futures. thats why the pilgrims came here and started colonizing...freedom. thats why the constitution was written, to ensure that all people living in america have the freedom, and infinately more important, THE RIGHT, to choose and not be chosen for. its easy for sarah pailin to say its ok for her daughter to have the baby cuz she on a nice government payroll and generally well off finacially and able to support her daughter. what about a young girl thats rapped, lives with abusive and drug addict parents,and even does drugs herself? the people making these decisions arent living out the lives of the women looking for an abortion. what if a father rapes his daughter? great, lets bring an innocent child into a world of molestation and violence. or on the other hand lets give that child up to people that arent its parents, and have them grow up never knowing who mom and dad are and deal with depression and other detatchment related phsycological problems. sarah palin is an idiot. and so is anyone against abortion. 90% of people against abortion have never had to make the decision themselves, are republican, or hardcore christians and it disgusts me to see others pushing they're beleifs onto innocent women and families. so they are 100% for abstinence based education (which has been proven not to work), against giving out contraceptives in schools, and against abortion? lets just all have anonymous sexual partners at young ages and see what happens to the world based on that kind of tripe. fools. let people choose, that is what america was founded on...THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF!! for the record, i marched on the RNC everyday in St. Paul for various causes and am proud to say i stood up against 200 SWAT officers, tear gas, flash grenades, and billy clubs for my rights as an American. and i think more people should do the same...

    • Posted By: Midwestmom @ 09/09/2008 4:53:54 PM

      The pilgrims came to this continent to escape religious persecution. The "Freedom" thing came with the Declaration of Independence - about 150 years later.
      By the way, the pilgrims were for the most part puritans, hence the reason we say the right wing still upholds the "puritanical" beliefs of our forefathers - using the pilgrims to justify your view on abortion was not a wise choice.

      • Posted By: LuvBama @ 09/09/2008 6:22:37 PM

        Do I get the choice to not have to have to pay the 39+% income tax Obooba wants to charge me? That would be cool :)

  • Posted By: marcharino @ 09/09/2008 12:59:55 AM

    How ironic that you use the phrase "hell-bent on playing God" for the abortion issue. Maybe you are not thinking about the "hell" a fetus endures when their body is suctioned out of a mother's uterus. But that doesn't surprise me since you have already selfishly admitted that aborting your child was to, "not ruin my life for the sake of an unborn fetus." You are the epitome of the selfish hedonism that has provoked some states, like South Dakota, to implement restrictions on elective abortions. You are, unfortunately, not alone in your selfishness: less than 1% of the abortions in America are for rape or incest; the remaining 99% are for reasons as frivolous as the baby "doesn't fit into my lifestyle." Regarding the "playing God" part: if your parents were "Christians," then perhaps they have never read the words of the Holy Bible's weeping prophet Jeremiah 1:5 who relates how God feels about the unborn fetus: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..." There should never be a time when inconvenience takes precedence over the life of an unborn child, for the unborn are a fulfillment of God's purpose, knowledge and will. For people like you, committing an infanticide should at least require a little bit of inconvenience to perpetuate the scourge and tragedy to America that abortion has become over the past 35 years.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 7:40:41 AM

      That's the downfall of your argument--religion. America is supposed to be a country where laws are made unhindered by ANY religion. While I agree that most abortions probably should have been babies carried to full term and then adopted, this is not a country where laws are based on religion. At least, it USED to not be like that.

      • Posted By: marcharino @ 09/09/2008 6:17:03 PM

        The laws of justice in the United States were largely based on the foundation of the system of justice found in the books of many religions--the Talmud, the Torah, and the Bible: You may have heard the words, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" or the "law is for the lawless (Bible quotes taken from the Judeo-Christian books of beliefs). Many of the laws in our legal system of justice are derived from, or have their basis in, Biblical sayings and standards. You can't divorce religion from justice--any more than you can divorce the individual from his or her religion. Morality has its basis in religion in most every civilized nation of the world!

  • Posted By: LuvBama @ 09/09/2008 6:08:50 PM

    You should read the stats on teen pregnancy before you left wing idiots offend even more people. I bet it's Sara Palin's fault too. According to Web MD:

    April 7, 2008 ??? The teen birth rate in the U.S. rose for the first time in 14 years in 2006, and the number of cesarean deliveries and births to unmarried women hit all-time highs, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

    Teen childbirths rose by 3% in 2006, to about 42 births for every 1,000 females between the ages of 15 and 19.

    That was up from 40.5 births per 1,000 in 2005, but still well below the 62 births per 1,000 recorded in 1991, when teen birth rates began their decade-plus decline.

    About 20,000 more births were recorded among teens in the U.S. in 2006 than the previous year, with a 5% increase seen among African-American teens, a 3% increase among non-Hispanic whites, and a 2% increase among Hispanics.

    While it is too early to say if the rise represents the beginning of a trend, Stephanie J. Ventura, who heads the NCHS reproductive statistics branch, says it is cause for concern.

    "This could continue or it could reverse, but it is not the direction we want to see," she tells WebMD.

  • Posted By: Emanuel @ 09/09/2008 4:40:30 PM

    The sluttiest girl I ever met was from Alaska. She said women up there couldn't help themselves because they were outnumbered by men 3:1, and the guys were really aggressive.

    • Posted By: AMiddleClassRepub @ 09/09/2008 5:42:40 PM

      And your point?

  • Posted By: careerdaytrader @ 09/09/2008 11:25:14 AM

    Why Democrats are IDIOTS!


    First - Obama is an idiot and you are too for following him BECAUSE his higher taxes will cause business owners to raise PRICES so YOU ultimately pay the tax. Secondly by reducing money to invest there WILL be fewer jobs! Also his health insurance cost will be about $11,000 per employee which will LOSE jobs.

    Second - Rich people are SMART. There is $11 TRILLION of US rich money OFFSHORE! Under Obama this will SKY ROCKET. I'll be one of the first to move part of my business offshore to reduce taxes. Why should I support the unworking poor who are lazy and stupid or buy health insurance for idiots who didn't go to college and thus have crappy jobs? No I'll just go offshore and keep my taxes LESS than I'm paying now! I paid $107,000 in taxes last year and this year it will be around $150,000. Under Obama I will structure it so I pay about $80,000 in US tax as MY PERSONAL PROTEST to his unfair tax policies.
    The FAIR amount breaks down to $9,600 PER PERSON so most of his supporters pay ZERO TAXES, they are a huge drag on the economy and want welfare hand outs. Not by me!

    His environmental policies will lose and push another 2 to 5 million jobs outside the US.

    Higher inflation due to businesses increasing prices to cover their huge new taxes will be resolved by the Federal Reserve by RAISING INTEREST RATES. So you dumb morons will pay MORE for your house payments! That could easily be $200 to $400 per month for a $200,000 loan!

    So good luck trying the Radical Obama's crazy plan. The rich will KEEP getting richer in SAFE OFFSHORE accounts and money will be invested in OTHER countries and create JOBS in OTHER countries.

    hahaha I almost HOPE Obama gets elected to punish you dumb morons for voting for him. When I drive by you at 100mph in my beautiful 335 BMW convirtible and your car is broken down at the side of the road because you can't afford the $7 per gallon gas Obama's idiotic energy policies helped create I WILL LAUGH MY RICH ASS OFF !!!!!

    • Posted By: neos @ 09/09/2008 11:44:18 AM

      Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!

      Jacob Marley

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/09/2008 5:29:44 PM

        Wow, yeah.

        Just...yeah.

    • Posted By: piinalu @ 09/09/2008 12:17:29 PM

      Careerdaytrader: Name calling is really helping. I'm sure you changed a lot of opinions with that post. Thanks... You're really helping your side!!

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/09/2008 5:29:09 PM

        Yeah, I kind of agree.

        Initially he bugged me. But between the fact that he wants to take a bunch of American money overseas (especially money that was obtained through activities related to day trading), his utter indifference to the anyone else's problems, his insults, and especially the phrase "I WILL LAUGH MY RICH ASS OFF!", now I think he's just doing a perfect job of showing the American people that there really is a segment of upperclass Republican America that is self-serving beyond measure and laughs at those people with less money than they do.

        Keep talking, daytrader. Please expound on the points "I'll be one of the first to move part of my business offshore to reduce taxes", "the unworking poor who are lazy and stupid", "you dumb morons", and "I WILL LAUGH MY RICH ASS OFF!!!!!" We can use them in poor areas to drum up votes for McCain...

  • Posted By: hilusmcg @ 09/09/2008 5:29:00 PM

    If they see this women so unfit as to even decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy, what makes them think they are capable of raising children?

  • Posted By: discmen @ 09/09/2008 3:35:40 PM

    If I have a three year old child, and decide that I want the kid dead, am I allowed to do it? No, that would be murder obviously. Our society has all sorts of rules in place, laws we call them, that override our right to decide for ourselves what is permissible and what isn't. From conception on, that is from the time the DNA code of the individual is finalized, all that is left for the individual is growth and aging until death. That is science, not opinion. If we want abortion in the CCountry fine, but lets call it what it is, Baby killing. Maybe baby killing is necessary, but let's be honest about what we are doing, at least.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:54:53 PM

      Can that child survive without you? Yes. Could the fetus survive seperated from a woman before 5-6 months in the womb? No, at least not in any but extrodinary situations. No fetus can survive out of the womb before vital organs are developed; so is a being without the vital organs of a human technically a human? Lets just call abortion whatever the hell we want: choice, baby killing, personal right, slight aginst god. Cause dependent on the person, none of those statements is wrong.

      • Posted By: somebunny @ 09/09/2008 4:47:14 PM

        A 3 month old wouldn't be able to survive on his or her own either. Would that be considered abortion? No that's considered murder. Where does it end? We can't have it both ways, but we always want to, don't we?

        • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 4:58:41 PM

          Of course a three month old can survive. I'm not talking about the ability to fend for ones self, im sure you picked up on that. A fetus can not survive detached from a mothers innerworkings before a certian point, so at what point is a fetus an individual? I would contend that until a fetus has developed the ability to survive outside of the womb, they are not an individual, and are still a part of the mother and laying under the domain of her person.

  • Posted By: SlouchingTowardBoulder @ 09/09/2008 4:50:14 PM

    This is like saying that outlawing homicide restricts a murderer's options.

  • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/09/2008 2:13:12 PM

    I just want you smarty pants out there to tell me where Palin is going to sent her critters to school if she becomes VP? I know all the headmasters in D.C. and there is not a single private school that will accept them.. For one they don't cook moose.

    • Posted By: Midwestmom @ 09/09/2008 4:48:51 PM

      Moose happens to be a very lean and healthy alternative to hormone injected feed lot cows. You may think you were funny, but you just sounded ignorant.

    • Posted By: pnkearns @ 09/09/2008 3:18:00 PM

      You know all the headmasters of D.C. since you met them being expelled?

    • Posted By: arcsc @ 09/09/2008 2:46:04 PM

      Wow, look down your nose much?

      • Posted By: josemarti @ 09/09/2008 3:09:36 PM

        Well.....Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. Palin has probably never even heard of the Ivy League. She probably thinks that a liberal arts college is where liberals send their kids to learn to draw. She probably thinks Colgate is a dental school. She probably does not know the h is silent in Amherst. (Go Lord Jefffreys). She probably thinks that Dartmouth is some kind of lake bass. That Penn is a writing utensil. And that Cornell is somethin that grows on your feet.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 3:17:28 PM

          I thought you were anti-Obama, pro-McCain?

    • Posted By: BigD9999 @ 09/09/2008 3:06:20 PM

      Perhaps they will be home schooled! That thought should get the left steamed up. Perhaps they could go to public schools. No, I forgot, they don't do well in DC

    • Posted By: BigD9999 @ 09/09/2008 3:04:48 PM

      Perhaps they will be "home schooled". That should really get the left steamed up.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 09/08/2008 5:03:44 PM

    Okay. Rove wins again. We are preparing to pick a president on the issue of abortion. Again.

    • Posted By: Midwestmom @ 09/09/2008 4:43:45 PM

      I don't understand why the abortion issue is brought up at every election. This is not a presidential issue. Roe vs Wade was a court case upheld by the Supreme Court. No matter who is elected President, the ruling would have to be overturned by the Supreme Court - the president can have an opinion, but he/she has no say.
      Even if McCain was given the opportunity to assign enough judges to the supreme court (not likely, since 4 would have to resign and 4 new judges would have to be chosen, approved and sworn in within one term), there would still need to be a case brought in front of the courts. We are talking YEARS before a Roe v Wade could ever be overturned.

  • Posted By: metros @ 09/09/2008 3:00:45 PM

    Roe states "the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." Advances in in-utero treatment and therapy push the "potentiality" issue and State "legitimate interest" earlier into the pregnancy. A woman's right to privacy and health do not supercede, but counter-balance the State's interest.

    State interests versus individual rights evolves from case to case while viability increases. Federal mandates do not allow for differing community standards of morality which affect individual choice. Just as individual morality differs from case to case, community definitions of State interest differ from state to state.

    The pendulum swing of foundational individual rights in Roe requires a counter swing for states' rights and community definitions of "State interest."

    The imposition of a rigid national rule rather than the allowance of regional differences has turned abortion into a polarizing wedge issue which unnecessarily distracts voters' attentions from issues of great national interest during Presidential campaigns.

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

      Now that is an intellegent, articulate, and well founded post.

      • Posted By: Anonymous9723 @ 09/09/2008 4:23:44 PM

        Regardless of jurisdiction, we should all be able to agree that the killing of innocent babies is wrong and should be illegal. We shouldn't let bureaucracy stand in the way of the basic human right to live.

  • Posted By: sjtaylor @ 09/09/2008 3:52:57 PM

    I agree that this young lady's life-changing pregnancy is her business. BUT I can't help but wonder if the GOP's reaction to this teenage pregnancy would have been the same were it Obama's daughter? I think we can all agree, regardless of political leanings, that there is a great deal of hypocrisy coming from the GOP.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:57:14 PM

      There's no need to wonder, the answer is no. If a 17yr old Obama daughter had a boyfriend with the myspace page that Levi Johnston has, it would be as if a Nuke had gone off for the far-right.

  • Posted By: Jamiehowe @ 09/09/2008 1:58:02 PM

    It continues to amaze me how threatened you, Opra, Ellen D, Katie C, The View, etc. and every other female Democrat surrogate are by Sarah Palin. After all these years of talk by the feminist movement, and now we have a female who has done something and delivered as a productive member of society. Not just talked about it, i.e. Hillary, Nancy P, etc. Her "choice" to have a special needs child and her daughter's "choice" to have her baby are somehow wrong in your eyes. You and your buds noted above are the epitomy of hipocrisy. It is sad and laughable at the same time.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 2:21:35 PM

      Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of accomplishment is. I begrudgingly admit Palin can be considered an accomplished woman, yet so can all of the others you were so quick to put down. I find it sad and laughable that you don't consider Hillary Clinton, with her advanced education and decades of political experience, an accomplished woman. Clinton was perfecting a health care plan when Palin was stilll on the PTA.

      • Posted By: Jamiehowe @ 09/09/2008 3:24:56 PM

        You hit the nail on the head. Hillary has years of "political experience". That's all she has. She was Rodham and childless until Bill lost his second run for govenor. Then she had a baby and took his name for political purposes. She worked of a politically correct law firm until Washington, D.C. pulled her away. Everything she has done was politically motivated from the beginning. And her healtcare plan is far from perfect. Unless believe in creating more beauracracy. Sarah Palin got into politics to try to change things that were wrong. To impact her community. Not for a career. This is what sets her so far apart, and above, the Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, Kennedys, Kerrys and Gores of the world. She is a statesman, not a politician. She is a true shining light. May God bless and protect her.

      • Posted By: BigD9999 @ 09/09/2008 3:14:50 PM

        Please remind me; How did Hillary's health care plan, perfect as it was, turn out for her?

  • Posted By: Alamerica @ 09/08/2008 11:01:07 PM

    Palin's decision to give birth to a Down-syndrome child was a crime; she not only trapped a human soul in a life-long jail but also drained important resources from the society. Bristol's desire to have free sex with wild boys violated the Bible. Is God damning America?

    • Posted By: arcsc @ 09/09/2008 3:18:16 PM

      WTF??? Is this Hitler from the grave??
      Cast stones much?

    • Posted By: Evax @ 09/09/2008 9:15:29 AM

      It is rare to meet people who have the guts to tell the truth against religious soldiers. To give birth to a Down-syndrome child when the disease is diagnosed in advance is indeed a crime. To have free sex without marriage indeed violates the Bible. To elect a religious soldier into the White House is indeed a disaster for the country and the world. Keep telling the truth; truth matters.

    • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 09/08/2008 11:38:02 PM

      Now what if science finds much improved treatment for those in that same "jail' in the next few years, so that it is not life-long? Palins decision is a blessing in so many ways!
      So is it that certain babies are a drain on societies resources that is Obamas' rationale for letting babies be murdered?
      Sounds like Obama has had his nose in Mein Kampf while hanging around Bill Ayers! Or some manual on ballistics for street thugs.
      Well, no big deal because the keys to Obama's plunging approval is in the low approval of the Congress (under DNC control) and his pick for VP (under Obama's control)...
      ... and who's to say Obamas' own kids wont grow up to have babys (punishment?), under tough conditions...and maybe those babies have medical challenges! ?hmm? hmm?
      Your contempt for Christians has you talking WAY too soon! God does seem to be at least admonishing America, inflicting us with idiots like you!
      But no big deal! Americans are great people! Awesome people! Especially those, who threw no fault of their own, require extra care, resources and resourcefullness? YES PALIN CAN!

  • Posted By: olivermva @ 09/09/2008 3:14:39 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: philmon @ 09/09/2008 11:22:40 AM

    "Palin signals fewer choices for women."

    Yeah, like, for instance, women apparently can't choose to be conservative.

    Apparently they can accept VP nominations ... IF they have a (D) after their name. Otherwise they should stay home and take care of their kids.

    Maybe some women are tired of being told what they are supposed to choose.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 3:05:56 PM

      Comparing Sarah Palin, who has very real family issues, to Hillary Clinton is ridiculous. Chelsea Clinton is in her late 20s and makes over six figures a year. Palin's kids are mostly minors, with the exception of her oldest who is heading off to his death. One is pregnant and engaged to a self-admitted redneck and one has Down's. How can you compare her to Clinton?

    • Posted By: workingmomsaregoodmoms @ 09/09/2008 11:39:09 AM

      philmom, that's HILARIOUS considering it's the Republicans who have been telling women that their only option is to stay at home barefoot and pregnant if they want to be "good" women and moms. Seems like they've changed their tune when it's expedient for them. Funny how all those conservatives who agree with that sentiment conveniently put it aside when it comes to their own VP nominee. Talk about hypocrites!

      • Posted By: arcsc @ 09/09/2008 2:59:04 PM

        Funny, no "Republicans" have told me that the only way I can be a good woman or mom is if I am at home with my kids. Most of those mean ole republican law partners of mine encourage me to work more, not less!! The only people who have ever expressed an opinion on my work habits and how that might relate to my abilities as a mother have been snarky women. But good try with the "Republicans" bit.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse