Palin says 17-year-old daughter is 5-months pregnant.

[ajblaise]

:headphne:

Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)

[MacGuffin]

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family,"
:shock: Were they even allowed to decide this? At 17...

Maybe they should've tried sex ed.

[Jeffster]

Props to Obama for being classy and saying the candidates' families shouldn't be an issue in the campaign.

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't care.

[pure_mercury]

Whatevs. I know Bristol Palin did go to public school, so she did get SOME type of sex ed. This doesn't surprise me in the least, but it's a non-issue. It may even end up a net positive for Sarah Palin. Pretty soon, she'll add grandmother to the list of all the things she can claim.

[ajblaise]

This doesn't surprise me in the least, but it's a non-issue.

True, but it could raise the issue of abstinence versus protection promotion and also tap into the notion that conservatives preach all these values, but when you look at the stats, they have the highest divorce and teen pregnancy rates, last time I checked.

[Ivy]

Whatevs. I know Bristol Palin did go to public school, so she did get SOME type of sex ed. This doesn't surprise me in the least, but it's a non-issue. It may even end up a net positive for Sarah Palin. Pretty soon, she'll add grandmother to the list of all the things she can claim.

This business of claiming her time on the PTA as "executive experience" reminds me so much of the custom of claiming stay-at-home-moms have experience as chefs, chauffeurs, doctors, nurses, CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, etc.

I've been a SAHM. I wasn't a C-anything-O. And I've been on the PTA, and I'm definitely not ready to lead the nation.

[pure_mercury]

True, but it could raise the issue of abstinence versus protection promotion and also tap into the notion that conservatives preach all these values, but when you look at the stats, they have the highest divorce and teen pregnancy rates, last time I checked.

That's a huge reach, I think. Didn't she go to a public school that teaches both contraception and abstinence? I don't see how that would be relevant here. Sarah Palin herself is pro-contraception. There isn't a "gotcha" here.

[pure_mercury]

This business of claiming her time on the PTA as "executive experience" reminds me so much of the custom of claiming stay-at-home-moms have experience as chefs, chauffeurs, doctors, nurses, CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, etc.

I've been a SAHM. I wasn't a C-anything-O. And I've been on the PTA, and I'm definitely not ready to lead the nation.

No, PTA certainly doesn't count. I was a member of the Neighborhood Watch in South Philly. I don't call myself a "law enforcement professional."

[ajblaise]

That's a huge reach, I think. Didn't she go to a public school that teaches both contraception and abstinence? I don't see how that would be relevant here. Sarah Palin herself is pro-contraception. There isn't a "gotcha" here.

Everything I'm reading is saying she is pro-abstinence and anti-birth control..."life starts at conception" and all that.

Regardless, it still raises the wider issue.

[pure_mercury]

Everything I'm reading is saying she is pro-abstinence and anti-birth control..."life starts at conception" and all that.

Regardless, it still raises the wider issue.

I believe I just read that she is pro-contraception (condoms and birth control, at least; probably iffy or against Morning After).

Here is a link:

Wonk Room (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/30/palin-contraception/)

[Jack Flak]

If her 17 year old is pregnant she is unfit for the office of vice president. Wait, what? Politics?

[Jeffster]

If I was a hot 17-year-old chick, I'd be pregnant too. :blush:

[Ivy]

I don't care if her son is pregnant. I just disagree that her PTA experience is worth jack. I don't highly value experience, though- I want a president who is whip-smart and level-headed, and whatever they haven't experienced they will figure out just fine. It just doesn't sit right after all the digs about Obama's experience.

[pure_mercury]

If I was a hot 17-year-old chick, I'd be pregnant too. :blush:

Wow, creepy!

Even creepier, though, my next comment: the 13-year-old girl is going to be the hot one.

[Ivy]

Yeah, those were both creepy comments. Congrats, guys.

[Jeffster]

No, see, I was being all "empathic" like the NFs love. You're too easily creeped. ;)

[pure_mercury]

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_v01.jpg

Is it just me, or are the little one's eyes a little too far apart?

[Jeffster]

little one? They're all HUGE! :eek:

[pure_mercury]

Sorry about the giant photo. Also, has anyone mentioned the rumor that Trig, the Down Syndrome baby, was, in fact, the eldest daughter's baby, and that Sarah Palin lied about being his mother?

[Jeffster]

Sorry about the giant photo. Also, has anyone mentioned the rumor that Trig, the Down Syndrome baby, was, in fact, the eldest daughter's baby, and that Sarah Palin lied about being his mother?

I read about that, but if Bristol is 5 months pregnant now, she couldn't have given birth 4 months ago...something in the timeline is off...but who knows...she definitely looks like she's up to something in that pic though ;)

[Ivy]

That is a handsome family.

I heard that, p_m, and then I heard that she had released the info about her daughter being pregnant to counter the rumor about Trig being her baby. IMO I'm inclined to believe her, if only because it's FAR more likely that Sarah would have a baby with DS than her daughter.

[pure_mercury]

That is a handsome family.

I heard that, p_m, and then I heard that she had released the info about her daughter being pregnant to counter the rumor about Trig being her baby. IMO I'm inclined to believe her, if only because it's FAR more likely that Sarah would have a baby with DS than her daughter.

Yes, exactly. I don't know what the odds are about DS, but I know that a 44-year-old is FAR more likely to have one than a 16- or 17-year-old.

[pure_mercury]

I read about that, but if Bristol is 5 months pregnant now, she couldn't have given birth 4 months ago...something in the timeline is off...but who knows...she definitely looks like she's up to something in that pic though ;)

Yeah, I think it would be nearly impossible. Sarah Palin was raised Catholic. Could be Irish twins. :D

[Ivy]

I don't know what the risk is for a 17yo, but it's like 1/1300 for a 25yo woman, and 1/30 for a 45yo woman. (I used to do pregnancy/birth/breastfeeding peer counseling which is why I know, I'm not trying to be a knowitall.) :)

[ajblaise]

I believe I just read that she is pro-contraception (condoms and birth control, at least; probably iffy or against Morning After).

Here is a link:

Wonk Room (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/30/palin-contraception/)

Apparently she's a member of Feminists For Life, a group with murky stances on birth control. They don't promote it.

The Nation has a good article on them Feminists for (Fetal) Life (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/pollitt)

[pure_mercury]

Apparently she's a member of Feminists For Life, a group with murky stances on birth control. They don't promote it.

The Nation has a good article on them Feminists for (Fetal) Life (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/pollitt)

That's a pretty terrible article. The woman from that article sounds dumb, but the author strongly implies that it is impossible to be both a feminist and pro-life, and that is obvious nonsense.

[ajblaise]

That's a pretty terrible article. The woman from that article sounds dumb, but the author strongly implies that it is impossible to be both a feminist and pro-life, and that is obvious nonsense.

Feminism is all about women's rights and interests, so you'd think that would include being in favor of a women's right to choose.

But I don't really have a problem with someone calling themselves a pro-life feminist.

[pure_mercury]

Feminism is all about women's rights and interests, so you'd think that would include being in favor of a women's right to choose.

But I don't really have a problem with someone calling themselves a pro-life feminist.

If you really believe that abortion is murder, though, then the matter isn't even an argument; it would be the old bumper sticker "It's a child not a choice!" belief.

[ajblaise]

If you really believe that abortion is murder, though, then the matter isn't even an argument; it would be the old bumper sticker "It's a child not a choice!" belief.

You can't see how believing in women's autonomy and rights would clash with the belief that abortion is wrong?

That's why it's odd to see a pro-life feminist. You don't see many around for that reason.

[pure_mercury]

You can't see how believing in women's autonomy and rights would clash with the belief that abortion is wrong?

Those ideas only "clash" because they aren't common. There is nothing cognitively dissonant about them. This is just an issue for which emotion crowds out rationality, on BOTH sides.

[ajblaise]

Those ideas only "clash" because they aren't common. There is nothing cognitively dissonant about them. This is just an issue for which emotion crowds out rationality, on BOTH sides.

Making abortion illegal would restrict women's rights, in direct contrast with feminism.

It would be taking what is now a legal right, and doing away with it.

[Ivy]

You can't see how believing in women's autonomy and rights would clash with the belief that abortion is wrong?

I don't, no. I probably am one, actually. A pro-life feminist could focus on solving the social problems that lead to abortion being an attractive choice for a woman, rather than on the right to have an abortion. I'm not in favor of re-outlawing abortion but I do think it's a regretful reality and one I'd like to see much, much more rare or non-existent. I also don't think it's necessary to shame or punish women for seeking it out--we just need to fix the reasons they seek it.

[Ivy]

Making abortion illegal would restrict women's rights, in direct contrast with feminism.

It would be taking what is now a legal right, and doing away with it.

Feminists don't necessarily want women to have the right to do things they consider wrong. A pro-life feminist likely that no one male OR female should have the right to murder another human being, any more than they should have the right to discriminate against a woman in the workplace.

Again, I'm not in favor of outlawing abortion (mainly because it wouldn't go away even if we did), but I don't disagree with the position.

[ajblaise]

Feminists don't necessarily want women to have the right to do things they consider wrong. A pro-life feminist likely that no one male OR female should have the right to murder another human being, any more than they should have the right to discriminate against a woman in the workplace.

Again, I'm not in favor of outlawing abortion (mainly because it wouldn't go away even if we did), but I don't disagree with the position.

Everyone thinks abortion is a sad event, seems you are essentially pro-choice.

[Ivy]

Everyone thinks abortion is a sad event, seems you are essentially pro-choice.

Well, gee, thanks for informing me of my own position. LOL

And no, not everybody thinks abortion is a sad event. I'm not really against it because I think it's "sad."

[pure_mercury]

Making abortion illegal would restrict women's rights, in direct contrast with feminism.

It would be taking what is now a legal right, and doing away with it.

That doesn't hold water. If you honestly believe that abortion is murder, then there IS no right to do it. You have to be able to understand that line of reasoning.

[ajblaise]

That doesn't hold water. If you honestly believe that abortion is murder, then there IS no right to do it. You have to be able to understand that line of reasoning.

It's taking away a legal right (i'm not talking about the natural rights theory) from women, something feminism generally isn't for.

Sure it's possible to be a pro-life feminist, but the reason why it's a rare identification is clear.

[ajblaise]

Well, gee, thanks for informing me of my own position. LOL

And no, not everybody thinks abortion is a sad event. I'm not really against it because I think it's "sad."

If you are pro-letting women choose, you are pro-choice. You wouldn't deny that right?

[Ivy]

If you are pro-letting women choose, you are pro-choice. You wouldn't deny that right?

I don't think it's a black and white issue and I'm uncomfortable with the attempts by both extremes to make it so. So I don't call myself either one.

[pure_mercury]

It's taking away a legal right (i'm not talking about the natural rights theory) from women, something feminism generally isn't for.

Sure it's possible to be a pro-life feminist, but the reason why it's a rare identification is clear.

Making murder illegal is NOT taking away a legal right. There is no way around that side of the argument. Slavery was legal, but emancipation wasn't "taking away a legal right" of slaveholders. It was acknowledging a gigantic failure in the previous laws. They didn't HAVE a right to own people.

[ajblaise]

Making murder illegal is NOT taking away a legal right.

Of course. Legally, abortion doesn't = murder, does it?

Right now there is a legal right to abort, pro-lifers want to take that legal right away. Simple logic.

[pure_mercury]

Of course. Legally, abortion doesn't = murder, does it?

Right now there is a legal right to abort, pro-lifers want to take that legal right away. Simple logic.

No, that doesn't work. If abortion is murder (and that is what these people believe) and you do not have the right to murder, then there is no right to have an abortion. That is the whole point. The right either exists or does not. It is not dependent upon the law. That is the reverse. You make the law because of the right (or lack thereof). Legality or illegality doesn't determine whether or not something is a right.

[millerm277]

To be on topic a bit...

This story has been circulating the internet for the past couple days, I'll find better links later (I know DailyKos ran it earlier, and some other less biased sites had it as well): OfficialWire: Palin Covers For Daughter's Love-Child (http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=72656&right=1)

Considering this news, it seems even more likely...

[Jeffster]

To be on topic a bit...

This story has been circulating the internet for the past couple days, I'll find better links later (I know DailyKos ran it earlier, and some other less biased sites had it as well): OfficialWire: Palin Covers For Daughter's Love-Child (http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=72656&right=1)

Considering this news, it seems even more likely...

So you think she's pregnant AGAIN? Or that she already had the baby and they're pretending she's pregnant now? Will they somehow produce a baby in 4 months or will she have a mysterious miscarriage? The plot thickens! ;)

[pure_mercury]

To be on topic a bit...

This story has been circulating the internet for the past couple days, I'll find better links later (I know DailyKos ran it earlier, and some other less biased sites had it as well): OfficialWire: Palin Covers For Daughter's Love-Child (http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=72656&right=1)

Considering this news, it seems even more likely...

I don't see how, given the timeline and the fact that the infant has DS.

[Carebear]

Of course. Legally, abortion doesn't = murder, does it?

Right now there is a legal right to abort, pro-lifers want to take that legal right away. Simple logic.

Gotta agree with p_m. Your logic only works if everybody agreed abortion doesn't equal murder.

[pure_mercury]

Gotta agree with p_m. Your logic only works if everybody agreed abortion doesn't equal murder.

Personally, I don't believe abortion is murder, and, in terms of ethics, I think it should be an option up until the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb. For me, when that would be is up to doctors to decide. Still, if you are operating under the logic of "life begins at conception/implantation," and that abortion = murder, then you can't possibly have a right to do it. I think they are wrong, but their position isn't automatically illogical.

[Ivy]

Personally, I don't believe abortion is murder, and, in terms of ethics, I think it should be an option up until the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb. For me, when that would be is up to doctors to decide. Still, if you are operating under the logic of "life begins at conception/implantation," and that abortion = murder, then you can't possibly have a right to do it. I think they are wrong, but their position isn't automatically illogical.

Exactly. I don't necessarily agree with it but it would be INconsistent if they believed abortion to be murder BUT thought women should have the right to do it. Objectively speaking, it has internal consistency.

Unless they make exceptions for rape or incest, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[Anonymous]

This is the kid that knocked her up:

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1007/74555118wc4.jpg

She picked a winner, alright!

[pure_mercury]

This is the kid that knocked her up:

She picked a winner, alright!

The picture just screams "GREAT FATHER!" ;)

Admission: there a lot of pictures of me that are just as bad as that, if not worse. And I was older than this young man when they were taken. Fortunately, I am no one's dad yet.

[ajblaise]

No, that doesn't work. If abortion is murder (and that is what these people believe) and you do not have the right to murder, then there is no right to have an abortion. That is the whole point. The right either exists or does not. It is not dependent upon the law. That is the reverse. You make the law because of the right (or lack thereof). Legality or illegality doesn't determine whether or not something is a right.

I'm talking about legal rights, which exist whether or not you believe in them.

There is a legal right in the US to be able to abort, pro-lifers don't believe there should be a legal right to abortion, so they want to take it away.

Whether or not there is a natural or human right to abort, or even if natural rights exist, is another debate.

[ajblaise]

Gotta agree with p_m. Your logic only works if everybody agreed abortion doesn't equal murder.

Legally it doesn't, that's all I'm pointing out. Whether abortion does or doesn't equal murder is another debate.

[pure_mercury]

I'm talking about legal rights, which exist whether or not you believe in them.

There is a legal right in the US to be able to abort, pro-lifers don't believe there should be a legal right to abortion, so they want to take it away.

You're trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Something does not become "a right" simply because it is legal. There are all kinds of restrictions on abortion currently, and abortion could be made illegal by act of Congress, if the Supreme Court didn't overturn the law. If abortion were a right, as you assert, then it cannot be abridged. Obviously, the government abridges rights all the time in reality, but still, legality does not equal rights.

[ajblaise]

You're trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Something does not become "a right" simply because it is legal.

oh man, it doesn't become a "right", it becomes a "legal right". Don't you understand what legal rights versus natural rights are?

[pure_mercury]

oh man, it doesn't become a "right", it becomes a "legal right". Don't you understand what legal rights versus natural rights are?

How can something be a "right" if it can be voted away, isn't universal, etc.? I know the concept about which you are talking, but something that is condoned legally doesn't rise to the level of a right, properly defined. I believe in natural rights, obviously, but a lot of our "legal" rights are common law, as well (due process, for instance). However, a right can't be legislated.

[Ivy]

You're really rocking that red herring with the legal vs. natural thing. I'm willing to bet p_m knows exactly what the difference is. The thing is, it doesn't really matter in this context because pro-life feminists would not consider the legal access to abortion to be valid in the first place. They would consider it a miscarriage of justice (no pun intended) that Roe v. Wade ever set the precedent of legal abortion. They would favor protecting the natural rights of the unborn by giving them legal protection, just as abolitionists favored protecting the natural rights of slaves by giving them legal protection.

[ajblaise]

How can something be a "right" if it can be voted away, isn't universal, etc.? I know the concept about which you are talking, but something that is condoned legally doesn't rise to the level of a right, properly defined. I believe in natural rights, obviously, but a lot of our "legal" rights are common law, as well (due process, for instance). However, a right can't be legislated.

Legal rights are rights based in law.

rights -- in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.

For legal rights, the standard or principal is obviously the legal system.


We both know legal rights exist, apparently you rather call them something else, that's fine.

[ajblaise]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter in this context because pro-life feminists would not consider the legal access to abortion to be valid in the first place.

Maybe if the pro-life feminist doesn't believe in the rule of law. Ethically, sure, they can consider it not valid.

[Lateralus]

Maybe if the pro-life feminist doesn't believe in the rule of law. Ethically, sure, they can consider it not valid.
They don't have to not believe in the rule of law to consider the law invalid. Some people consider their own moral code to supercede the law. I just don't see the moral contradiction that you've been asserting for the last few pages.

[Ivy]

Maybe if the pro-life feminist doesn't believe in the rule of law. Ethically, sure, they can consider it not valid.

Feminists (and other activists) fight for removing legal rights all the time, if they think those legal rights infringe on basic human rights. It was once legal to fire women when they got pregnant; now it's not (technically). I suppose the feminists who fought for that change in the law didn't believe in the rule of law either?

[pure_mercury]

Legal rights, the standard or principal is obviously the legal system.

I wouldn't call something that is based solely upon legislation a right. Sorry. The "right" to abortion in the United States is actually a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause (which DOES concern itself with rights) that the Supreme Court decided was inherent, i.e., women always had it, but had been denied it by various state abortion laws. Now, in the United States, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what you would call "legal rights," but we don't need their imprimatur (nor even that of the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate governmental authority) when it comes to rights. Look at the Kelo case. The Supreme Court got that one wrong, if you believe in the right to hold property.

[Jeffster]

This is the kid that knocked her up:

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1007/74555118wc4.jpg

She picked a winner, alright!

Since he's getting the ol ball and chain now, I'll take the one on the left off his hands. ;)

[ajblaise]

They don't have to not believe in the rule of law to consider the law invalid. Some people consider their own moral code to supercede the law.

Valid as in "having legal force" "being legal" or as in "sound" "just"?

With the latter, yeah they can believe it to be non-valid, but the law still exists, so in that sense, it's valid.

[ajblaise]

I wouldn't call something that is based solely upon legislation a right.

Which is why it's called a legal right, and not simply, a right. They aren't the same thing, one exists totally in the legal realm. Your thinking is too black and white in this instance.

[Enyo]

:headphne:

Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)

*groans* Do they not have access to birth control in Alaska? Or is it just that it's so darned cold and boring there that pretty much all teen agers can do with their time is boink?

Gotta say, maybe a less conservative mother might have prevented this.

[Jeffster]

Gotta say, maybe a less conservative mother might have prevented this.

Now, that's just silly.

[pure_mercury]

*groans* Do they not have access to birth control in Alaska? Or is it just that it's so darned cold and boring there that pretty much all teen agers can do with their time is boink?

Gotta say, maybe a less conservative mother might have prevented this.

Man, think about the situation for this kid if Palin becomes President later on somehow. A lot of guys complain about their mothers-in-law. What would it be like if you knocked up the President's underage daughter, and you're not prepared for the responsibility? Scary.

[Enyo]

That doesn't hold water. If you honestly believe that abortion is murder, then there IS no right to do it. You have to be able to understand that line of reasoning.

Someone I know put it this way:

"I'm pro-choice. I, personally believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that it is murder. But I do not believe that I have the right to impose my own views of reproduction on someone else."

[Carebear]

Legally it doesn't, that's all I'm pointing out. Whether abortion does or doesn't equal murder is another debate.

Ok, I see you've been using the term "legal right" all along, so I see what you mean now I think:

Feminism is normally against removing legal rights.
Pro-Life feminists want to remove this legal right.
Therefore pro-life feminists can't really be considered feminists (or at least they're a strange kind of feminists.)

Am I right?

That logic works, but I think the first premise is a bit too simple. Feminists are normally against moving legal rights, but not because they're legal rights. They seem instead to be led by what they perceive as universal human rights. Whenever those universal rights line up with legal rights, they defend the legal rights. When they don't, they try to change the legal rights.

If we change the first premise, the logic of the pro-life feminists is:
Feminism is giving women universal human rights and defending these.
Abortion is murder.
Being able to murder is not an universal human right.
The right to live is an universal human right.
Therefore it's logical to prevent abortion.

Whereas the more common feminist logic goes:
Feminism is giving women universal human rights and defending these.
Abortion is not murder.
Authority over ones own body is a universal right.
Therefore it's logical to defend the legal right to adoption.

[Enyo]

Now, that's just silly.

Why? If my mom were uber-conservative and opposed birth control, I sure as hell wouldn't talk to her about sex. Other, of course, than to tell her that I'm not doing it if she asked.

I'd bet that her kid did the same thing, until it was time to tell mom that "surprise, you're going to be a grandma"

[01011010]

*groans* Do they not have access to birth control in Alaska? Or is it just that it's so darned cold and boring there that pretty much all teen agers can do with their time is boink?

Gotta say, maybe a less conservative mother might have prevented this.

Meh

The issue is being a conservative christian and believing in abstinence. Theoretically, there's no need to tell their kids about protection because they will definitely wait until marriage. :doh:

[Jeffster]

Why? If my mom were uber-conservative and opposed birth control, I sure as hell wouldn't talk to her about sex. Other, of course, than to tell her that I'm not doing it if she asked.

I'd bet that her kid did the same thing, until it was time to tell mom that "surprise, you're going to be a grandma"

Daughters of "uber-liberal" moms get pregnant too. It's a flimsy connection.

[pure_mercury]

Someone I know put it this way:

"I'm pro-choice. I, personally believe that abortion is wrong. I believe that it is murder. But I do not believe that I have the right to impose my own views of reproduction on someone else."

Yeah, that is completely illogical. I can see how one would make the concession to society that many people do NOT feel the same way, but if you TRULY believe abortion is murder, I don't see how you can feel that it should be legal. That just is beyond the pale. I hope that this person doesn't actually believe that abortion is murder, but rather simply feels an innate repulsion from it.

Meh

The issue is being a conservative christian and believing in abstinence. Theoretically, there's no need to tell their kids about protection because they will definitely wait until marriage. :doh:

We've already established that that was not the case here.

Why? If my mom were uber-conservative and opposed birth control, I sure as hell wouldn't talk to her about sex. Other, of course, than to tell her that I'm not doing it if she asked.

I'd bet that her kid did the same thing, until it was time to tell mom that "surprise, you're going to be a grandma"

Sarah Palin doesn't oppose birth control, by her own admission.

[ajblaise]

Ok, I see you've been using the term "legal right" all along, so I see what you mean now I think:

Feminism is normally against removing legal rights.
Pro-Life feminists want to remove this legal right.
Therefore pro-life feminists can't really be considered feminists (or at least they're a strange kind of feminists.)

Am I right?

That logic works, but I think the first premise is a bit too simple. Feminists are normally against moving legal rights, but not because they're legal rights. They seem instead to be led by what they perceive as universal human rights. Whenever those universal rights line up with legal rights, they defend the legal rights. When they don't, they try to change the legal rights.

If we change the first premise, the logic of the pro-life feminists is:
Feminism is giving women universal human rights and defending these.
Abortion is murder.
Being able to murder is not an universal human right.
The right to live is an universal human right.
Therefore it's logical to prevent abortion.

Whereas the more common feminist logic goes:
Feminism is giving women universal human rights and defending these.
Abortion is not murder.
Authority over ones own body is a universal right.
Therefore it's logical to defend the legal right to adoption.

I'd just change "Feminism is normally against removing legal rights" to "Feminism is normally for maintaining and increasing legal rights pertaining to women, not getting rid of them."

[Enyo]

Yeah, that is completely illogical. I can see how one would make the concession to society that many people do NOT feel the same way, but if you TRULY believe abortion is murder, I don't see how you can feel that it should be legal. That just is beyond the pale. I hope that this person doesn't actually believe that abortion is murder, but rather simply feels an innate repulsion from it.

She feels that it is murder from a religious standpoint. She believes that all life is sacred, and life begins at conception. However, she's pagan and doesn't expect everyone to share her views. *shrugs* It's her view, and it works for her.

[pure_mercury]

She feels that it is murder from a religious standpoint. She believes that all life is sacred, and life begins at conception. However, she's pagan and doesn't expect everyone to share her views. *shrugs* It's her view, and it works for her.

Fair enough. I think it's inconsistent, but this is an issue that falls outside the bounds of formal logic for many people.

[ajblaise]

Yeah, that is completely illogical. I can see how one would make the concession to society that many people do NOT feel the same way, but if you TRULY believe abortion is murder, I don't see how you can feel that it should be legal. That just is beyond the pale. I hope that this person doesn't actually believe that abortion is murder, but rather simply feels an innate repulsion from it.

Lots of people believe putting people to death is murder, yet they support the death penalty.

[pure_mercury]

Lots of people believe putting people to death is murder, yet they support the death penalty.

Then they support murder, too. Good for them. :nice:

[ajblaise]

Then they support murder, too. Good for them. :nice:

Are they being illogical like the pro-choice person who believes abortion is murder apparently is?

Neither are, because not everyone believes murder is always wrong.

[pure_mercury]

Are they being illogical like the pro-choice person who believes abortion is murder apparently is?

Neither are, because not everyone believes murder is always wrong.

This definition of "murder" must be a strange one. HOMICIDE isn't always wrong, but murder is (or it should be, anyway).

[pure_mercury]

So they are illogical because they don't follow your personal views on what is wrong or right?

"Murder is wrong" = "my personal view?" I don't think so.

[Carebear]

I'd just change "Feminism is normally against removing legal rights" to "Feminism is normally for maintaining and increasing legal rights pertaining to women, not getting rid of them."

True. Still, as I said, I think the legal rights thing is just the tool they use to promote what they see as universal rights. For those who don't see abortion as a breach of the universal rights, banning of abortion would be seen as counterproductive to their cause, but for those who do think it violates universal rights it's logical to accept a ban. IOW no inconsistency in any of the views, just two logical conclusions to the question: Is abortion an universal human right or a violation of an universal human right?

Lots of people believe putting people to death is murder, yet they support the death penalty.

Heh, I've never been able to understand that view.

[Enyo]

Daughters of "uber-liberal" moms get pregnant too. It's a flimsy connection.

True enough, but I was speaking in terms of "safe to talk to mom about sex."

But, for the record, when I went to high school in the south, it was always the good girls from the nice Christian families who got pregnant, not the ones who were "sluts".

[Enyo]

Lots of people believe putting people to death is murder, yet they support the death penalty.

And it seems like a lot of pro-lifers support the death penalty while a lot of pro-choicers are anti-death penalty. That's always seemed inconsistent to me.

But, hey, I support both, so maybe that just makes me bloodthirsty. :devil:

[Bluesman]

Considering that about half of all pregnancies involve a girl child, I'd say there's nothing contradictory about calling oneself a pro-life feminist. In many parts of the world (e.g., China) girls are much more likely to be aborted than boys, because society doesn't value its girls as highly as its boys in either a social or economic sense. I'd say that definitely makes it a feminist issue. That it is possible to hold to either a pro-life or a pro-choice view and still be a feminist simply demonstrates that those who try to confound the issues are guided more by their politics than a coherent philosophy. Thus far everything I've heard about Sarah Palin indicates that she is guided by a rational and consistent philosophy of life, and truly seeks to live by its principles. That's more than can be said for most folks, and certainly most politicians.

In any event, the decision by Bristol Palin to have her child, get married, etc. is a purely family matter and has nothing to do with her mother's qualifications for office. The rumors that baby Trig was Bristol's have been debunked by biology, so there's nothing left on that front that might impact on our evaluation of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate.

[lowtech redneck]

And it seems like a lot of pro-lifers support the death penalty while a lot of pro-choicers are anti-death penalty. That's always seemed inconsistent to me.


Not really; the former think that murderers have abrogated their right to life through their actions, while the latter may believe that the right to life cannot be abrogated, but the unborn simply do not qualify as human beings with inherent rights.

To a large extent, though, your implicit point is valid; people tend to adopt the issue-positions of their political compatriots, even when the basis of such positions conflict with the values and principles that originally brought such people together behind a separate issue.

[pure_mercury]

Not really; the former think that murderers have abrogated their right to life through their actions, while the latter may believe that the right to life cannot be abrogated, but the unborn simply do not qualify as human beings with inherent rights.

This is a good point; most Americans do not believe that capital punishment is murder (and, in theory, it is not). However, I do not understand Catholics (especially Catholic politicians) who are "pro-life" and pro-death penalty at the same time.

[booyalab]

However, I do not understand Catholics (especially Catholic politicians) who are "pro-life" and pro-death penalty at the same time.

What if "pro-life" was changed to "anti-induced abortion"? Ta-da, no contradiction.

[Magic Poriferan]

What if "pro-life" was changed to "anti-induced abortion"? Ta-da, no contradiction.

The problem is that pro-life people tend to start building premises on the concept of preserving life, so it's not longer just about the word.

[pure_mercury]

The problem is that pro-life people tend to start building premises on the concept of preserving life, so it's not longer just about the word.

I always found it funny that nobody wants to be "anti-"anything in this debate. How can you have two opposing sides who are both "pro-?"

[Lateralus]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this. Someone can believe convicted murderers deserve death without conflicting with a pro-life stance. How many aborted fetuses are guilty of murder?

[Magic Poriferan]

I always found it funny that nobody wants to be "anti-"anything in this debate. How can you have two opposing sides who are both "pro-?"

Anti sounds bad. Negation always sounds bad.

But, two sides being pro is not illogical. Black and white are opposites. One side could be pro-black, and the other could be pro-white, and that would make sense (though I have no idea what they are debating).

Just the same, we could have an anti-black side and an anti-white side, and it would mean about the same thing (note that it wouldn't if there were more choices than just black and white), but like I said, pro always sounds better than anti.

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this. Someone can believe convicted murderers deserve death without conflicting with a pro-life stance. How many aborted fetuses are guilty of murder?

Not using that phrase would be a good start to ending the confusion.

[Lateralus]

Not using that phrase would be a good start to ending the confusion.
The stances of pro-lifers are pretty much common knowledge. Where is the confusion? And why do you care?

[Carebear]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this. Someone can believe convicted murderers deserve death without conflicting with a pro-life stance. How many aborted fetuses are guilty of murder?

Then changing it to "pro-innocent life" or similar would be better.

[Carebear]

The stances of pro-lifers are pretty much common knowledge. Where is the confusion? And why do you care?

Because it sounds a bit too much like Orwellian Newspeak and people generally feel queasy when doublethink starts spreading?

[pure_mercury]

Not using that phrase would be a good start to ending the confusion.

Their side can easily say that "pro-choice" is the inaccurate term. That is one of the hang-ups of this debate.

[Magic Poriferan]

Their side can easily say that "pro-choice" is the inaccurate term. That is one of the hang-ups of this debate.

My solution is simple. Both terms go away. One side can be for abortion, and one side can be against.

[Ivy]

Except that it's not that simple. Not everyone who is opposed to outlawing abortion is "for abortion." I'm certainly not.

[Carebear]

Except that it's not that simple. Not everyone who is opposed to outlawing abortion is "for abortion." I'm certainly not.

Well... it could be that simple if MP's simple suggestion was tweaked to "for outlawing abortion" and "against outlawing abortion", no?

[Ivy]

Well... it could be that simple if MP's simple suggestion was tweaked to "for outlawing abortion" and "against outlawing abortion", no?

I don't know. It doesn't end at "against outlawing abortion" for me. That would be an incomplete answer to a problem that is more complex than any duality can reflect.

[pure_mercury]

It's too bad it's been used already for alcohol, but I'd like to use "prohibitionists" and "anti-prohibitionists." "Prohibitionist" sounds like a bad thing, and, apparently, no one wants to be "anti-"anything, but someone should be. Both sides win/lose.

[Maabus1999]

I disagree with abortion personally but I don't think it should be illegal at a federal level. People will still do it, and I rather it be under safe and controlled conditions then outright illegal.

I think the best compromise is just let the state's decide, just like the gay marriage issues. It keeps things more local where cultures are more closely tied together then nationally where there are some distinct differences.

[sassafrassquatch]

I think the best compromise is just let the state's decide, just like the gay marriage issues. It keeps things more local where cultures are more closely tied together then nationally where there are some distinct differences.

A woman's body is not community property. Neither are people's relationships the business of their neighbors.

[pure_mercury]

A woman's body is not community property. Neither are people relationships the business of their neighbors.

I definitely agree with the second sentence. As for the first one, the "life begins at conception" crowd have a coherent argument (albeit one you or I would deem incorrect).

[Magic Poriferan]

Except that it's not that simple. Not everyone who is opposed to outlawing abortion is "for abortion." I'm certainly not.

I don't know. It doesn't end at "against outlawing abortion" for me. That would be an incomplete answer to a problem that is more complex than any duality can reflect.

At a policy making level, you are indifferent from someone that favors abortion.

[Ivy]

At a policy making level, you are indifferent from someone that favors abortion.

It's getting really old having folks inform me of what my opinions are.

I favor social policies that would make abortion rare, if not go away entirely. I am absolutely not pro-abortion as I would love to make it disappear. IMO, making it illegal won't make it disappear, it'll just make it kill more mothers along with the fetuses.

[pure_mercury]

At a policy making level, you are indifferent from someone that favors abortion.

She's not when you're talking about government-funded abortion, or parental consent laws, or many other aspects of abortion-related law beyond simply whether or not it should be legal at all.

[Magic Poriferan]

It's getting really old having folks inform me of what my opinions are.

I favor social policies that would make abortion rare, if not go away entirely. I am absolutely not pro-abortion as I would love to make it disappear. IMO, making it illegal won't make it disappear, it'll just make it kill more mothers along with the fetuses.

But, I'm not telling what your opinions are, and I'm not telling you that you are pro-abortion. I am stating that you would not keep people form having abortions, which mean you're letting people get abortions(even if you'd like people not to), so the end result is basically a pro-choice policy, even if entirely in concept you do not like abortions. It's opinion versus practice.

She's not when you're talking about government-funded abortion, or parental consent laws, or many other aspects of abortion-related law beyond simply whether or not it should be legal at all.

This might be true. Often pro-choice and pro-life is simply brought down to legality of abortions, but there are other factors. I don't know what Ivy's stance on any of them is, though.

[Mondo]

I think Palin will still be able to prove to the Republicans that she is for family values.
I mean, hey.. well... the daughter certainly can't get an abortion now.

[alicia91]

Sarah Palin doesn't oppose birth control, by her own admission

Right, but would she have been cool with her daughter coming to her at age 16 and asking to go on the Pill? When my sister and I were 16 we both went on the Pill and Mom drove us to the clinic. And what I've said to my 15 yo daughter is 'I'd rather that you wait until you are an adult, out of high school and better equiped to deal with the impact of having sex - BUT if you are going to do it, I'll drive you to get whatever you need, and I promise not to judge you.'

Frankly, I think the fact that her daugther is pregnant is an example of the downside of these conservative values - the kids can't tell their parents that they are having sex.

[Gen]

Seriously? Her daughter is pregnant and that means she is unfit for office? This coming from the same group that asserted that a president's own philandering did not make him unfit for office?

For the record, I'm not pro-Palin, nor anti-Clinton, just annoyed with the inconsistencies on both sides and tired of the state of politics having nothing to do with actual important issues.

[pure_mercury]

Right, but would she have been cool with her daughter coming to her at age 16 and asking to go on the Pill? When my sister and I were 16 we both went on the Pill and Mom drove us to the clinic. And what I've said to my 15 yo daughter is 'I'd rather that you wait until you are an adult, out of high school and better equiped to deal with the impact of having sex - BUT if you are going to do it, I'll drive you to get whatever you need, and I promise not to judge you.'

Frankly, I think the fact that her daugther is pregnant is an example of the downside of these conservative values - the kids can't tell their parents that they are having sex.

Well, as stated before, Bristol Palin did get sex ed in public high school, and her mother is not anti-contraception, but none of us knows what the atmosphere regarding sexual morality is like within their home. I know a girl who got pregnant the same age, and in a similarly rich and evangelical home, and she told me that her parents would have been FAR more incensed to find out if she had been getting drunk and experimenting with drugs. In my middle-class, weak-but-practicing Catholic upbringing, getting drunk (and even trying some drugs) is de rigueur for high school kids, but my parents would have been really upset if they caught me having sex in their house, especially at that age.

[alicia91]

True - I shouldn't have assumed that she promoted abstinance for her kids. With her Pentecostal/Assembly of God religion, I just took it for granted. My mistake. :doh:

Edit - just read on Wiki that her own first child was born eight months after her own wedding, so I guess she's cool with premarital sex.

[pure_mercury]

True - I shouldn't have assumed that she promoted abstinance for her kids. With her Pentecostal/Assembly of God religion, I just took it for granted. My mistake. :doh:

Edit - just read on Wiki that her own first child was born eight months after her own wedding, so I guess she's cool with premarital sex.

She's been with her husband since high school, so it seems it was about 8 years between meeting him and getting married. I'd be willing to bet that she and her husband starting having sex at their engagement or before.

[Jen]

If morals played a part in Bush being elected for another term then I hope this ruins their chances this time. Here are a few other things that bug me about McCain's choice in VP.

When she was recently asked about her chances of being offered the VP position she replied, "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" There are so many things wrong with this woman which makes me even more determined to vote for Obama in hopes of avoiding even more damage and bad publicity for our country. She also backs the Alaska Independence Party and they want to separate Alaska from the US which is going to destroy McCain's "Country First" thing.

I watched some of the Republican Convention last night and couldn't believe how glassy eyed and easily persuaded a lot of those people appeared to be in the crowd.

Do you want this woman running our country if McCain croaks?

[pure_mercury]

If morals played a part in Bush being elected for another term then I hope this ruins their chances this time. Here are a few other things that bug me about McCain's choice in VP.

When she was recently asked about her chances of being offered the VP position she replied, "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" There are so many things wrong with this woman which makes me even more determined to vote for Obama in hopes of avoiding even more damage and bad publicity for our country. She also backs the Alaska Independence Party and they want to separate Alaska from the US which is going to destroy McCain's "Country First" thing.

I watched some of the Republican Convention last night and couldn't believe how glassy eyed and easily persuaded a lot of those people appeared to be in the crowd.

Do you want this woman running our country if McCain croaks?

Well, I certainly don't want John McCain or Barack Obama running it. :steam: I wouldn't be comfortable with her as POTUS, but I haven't been comfortable with 90% of the politicians we've had in Washington my whole life. Also, your avatar actually makes me kinda like this woman. Rifles and bikinis are big positives in my book.

[booyalab]

The problem is that pro-life people tend to start building premises on the concept of preserving life, so it's not longer just about the word.

I think you're confusing rhetoric with argument. "pro-life" is not the premise. It's rhetoric. There's rhetoric on every side of every debate. When people say "pro-life" they mean "anti-induced abortion". When people say "pro-choice" they mean "the life of the fetus is less important than the choice of the mother". Pro-lifers don't build on the premise of preserving life. The premise would have to be their fundamental belief, and as evidenced by the fact that many of them don't care if they step on a bug or support the death penalty, the vague "preserving life" is not the premise. They build on the premise that a fetus should be given the same opportunity to live as a newborn baby.

[Usehername]

I think you're confusing rhetoric with argument. "pro-life" is not the premise. It's rhetoric. There's rhetoric on every side of every debate. When people say "pro-life" they mean "anti-induced abortion". When people say "pro-choice" they mean "the life of the fetus is less important than the choice of the mother". Pro-lifers don't build on the premise of preserving life. The premise would have to be their fundamental belief, and as evidenced by the fact that many of them don't care if they step on a bug or support the death penalty, the vague "preserving life" is not the premise. They build on the premise that a fetus should be given the same opportunity to live as a newborn baby.

Nice post.

[Metamorphosis]

I watched some of the Republican Convention last night and couldn't believe how glassy eyed and easily persuaded a lot of those people appeared to be in the crowd.

This certaintly isn't the case with Obama fans.

[FDG]

it's not like one more human being out of seven billions will make any difference.

I'd be more interested in the vid of her having sex rather than in pointless political debate.

[pure_mercury]

it's not like one more human being out of seven billions will make any difference.

I'd be more interested in the vid of her having sex rather than in pointless political debate.

In the illegal child pornography, you mean? She is 17 years old, possibly 16 when she was impregnated.

[sassafrassquatch]

I'd be more interested in the vid of her having sex rather than in pointless political debate.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z9/rabidhominid/ceiling-hanson.jpg

[Lateralus]

Do you want this woman running our country if McCain croaks?
She wouldn't be my first choice. He should have picked me as his running mate.

[Enyo]

She wouldn't be my first choice. He should have picked me as his running mate.

Nah, I kinda favor Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs for President. Okay, so I don't agree with their stance on abortion or gay rights, but at least they have it on national security (and a secure border), the economy, and the general corruption and ineffectiveness that is our current government.

[Lateralus]

Nah, I kinda favor Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs for President. Okay, so I don't agree with their stance on abortion or gay rights, but at least they have it on national security (and a secure border), the economy, and the general corruption and ineffectiveness that is our current government.
I bet my views are closer to yours than theirs are. /campaign

[lowtech redneck]

Do you want this woman running our country if McCain croaks?

Compared to Obama? Hell yes!

[Enyo]

I bet my views are closer to yours than theirs are. /campaign

*giggles* Probably. You have a tendency to post what I'm thinking.

[pure_mercury]

Nah, I kinda favor Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs for President. Okay, so I don't agree with their stance on abortion or gay rights, but at least they have it on national security (and a secure border), the economy, and the general corruption and ineffectiveness that is our current government.

Lou Dobbs sucks on free trade, and they both have a bit too much of the populist demagoguery for my tastes. Of course, I am an effete "cosmotarian," so there you go. :yes:

[FDG]

In the illegal child pornography, you mean?

Exactly! That stuff!