Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Beth in SW WA

McCain picked Sarah Palen, Governor of Alaska, as VP

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the information, Rowan and Peek. I have a better understanding as to where y'all are coming from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are for her because she is a Conservative, hey that's great. But I am fully convinced that the Republicans did this because they think Democratic women are stupid.

 

Seriously? :001_huh:

 

I mean, you're seriously "fully convinced" that Republicans "think that Democratic women are stupid"? I'm really asking here.

 

I can't tell whether to be offended on behalf of the Republicans or the Democratic women. (Just for the record, I am neither. Oh--but I AM a woman! :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't get that at all from this selection. I don't get it. Weren't you already an Obama supporter though before Palin was picked? I'm not sure what you have to be mad about. Oh, and do you have numbers on American women's views on Palin's positions? Thanks. :)

 

Actually, for me no. I have wavered about Obama. In fact if McCain had picked Joe Lieberman, I was very tempted to vote for him. Not all of us who dislike Palin do so because we were already in the Obama camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But her positions are not shared by the majority of the American women- that is fact, and the Republicans rolled her out like "Here is your skirt, now go vote."

 

It's not the women who support her I'm against- far far from it. It's the tactics used by the Republican party. I'm a registered Republican. I have a good reason to be mad as h*** about this just like some Conservative women have a right to be throwing parties.

 

 

hm.

I might take issue w/ your fact of "her positions are not shared by the majority of the American women" -- i haven't seen any evidence polling women about palin's views yet. But I'm willing to take a look at surveys ;)

 

well, if a majority of american women disagree with her then Mccain won't be elected.

and if a majority of conservatives think McCain still tips the ticket too heavy to the liberal side, then he won't win.

 

and I have to say, I still don't see how yor disagreement w/ Palin as a strong conservative VP choice makes the Republican party "tacts" evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Peek a Boo, "It is my understanding in exploring the same issue that the two options are not mutually exclusive. Different people are called at different times for different purposes."

 

I think the blog I referenced spells it out fairly well from a Scriptural standpoint. I don't necessarily believe we can interpret God's providence in a particular instance so that we could conclude that He is shaming our nation by His appointment of Polin as VP (assuming she is elected), or that He is commenting on the inability of the men who are left unchosen by McCain. However, I do think that this, or something like it, is the general mindset of the Scriptures. I would rather say that the circumstance of women taking up leadership in the State is often an unfortunate necessity - which may, of course, be used by God to bless. God's pattern is to shame the strong by using the weak to save (1 Cor. 1:27). This highlights His mercy at the same time that it demonstrates man's (or men's) ineptitude. When I say "weak" in reference to women, I'm thinking in terms of 1 Pet. 3.7 where he calls the wife the "weaker vessel." I don't think this is a judgment of quality. Rather, it is a comment on the nature of woman. She is a weaker, i.e., a "delicate" vessel while the man is a stronger, "cruder" instrument. They are made for different uses. A tea cup is delicate but not very appropriate vessel for hammering nails. A hammer is useless for the sophistication of tea-time, but is good for construction, even if it's not much to look at. And so, when God uses a tea cup to drive nails, it suggests He finds the hammer useless.

Love this and thanks so much for sharing. You said it much better than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly the problem with what has become the reality of the feminist movement. Instead of working for a world where women actually have a choice in lifestyle they are only supporting women who wish to give up motherhood and homemaking; they are focused on the "working woman". They think that all women must fall into a particular box-liberal, working, supportive of certain issues. A movement for the equality of women would respect choices. That would also include the choice to stay home with their families rather than work outside the home. There are plenty fighting for the rights of women from both sides of the fence.

 

I say again, women will get nowhere until they stop trying to define "woman" rather than accepting differences and fighting over the issues. You are choosing a very narrow definition of who is a true woman. From the examples on this board alone women are varied in religion, politics, race, educational theories, and preference in feminine products.

 

If you disagree with a woman for her politics-attack her politics. But these constant snide and snarky insults to conservative (and perhaps even moderate women or just those pleased to see a woman on the ticket) are just ridiculous. Honest, sincere, real women are voting for a variety of candidates in this race; stop slapping those that disagree with you.

 

Women have had the right to and have been staying at home for many many more years than women have been accepted at Universities or having careers outside the home.

With our economy in so much trouble, less women have the option of staying at home. I know one woman who just recently had to go back to work due to rising energy, food, and other costs.

 

I consider myself VERY blessed to have a CHOICE to stay at home or work. I feel so blessed that I need to stand up for those women who don't have or don't make the same choice. I might not need quality day care, but every woman and child should have it. I can afford my own insurance, but those who cannot should not have to go without it.

 

I NEED those women out there working, building careers, having stay at home dads, being strong single parents - because I want my daughter to have choices lots and lots of choices. Maybe she herself will grow up to be a Conservative one day, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, for me no. I have wavered about Obama. In fact if McCain had picked Joe Lieberman, I was very tempted to vote for him. Not all of us who dislike Palin do so because we were already in the Obama camp.

 

Sorry, Jenny. That was directed at Star Wars Jedi Lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Women have had the right to and have been staying at home for many many more years than women have been accepted at Universities or having careers outside the home.

With our economy in so much trouble, less women have the option of staying at home. I know one woman who just recently had to go back to work due to rising energy, food, and other costs.

 

I consider myself VERY blessed to have a CHOICE to stay at home or work. I feel so blessed that I need to stand up for those women who don't have or don't make the same choice. I might not need quality day care, but every woman and child should have it. I can afford my own insurance, but those who cannot should not have to go without it.

 

I NEED those women out there working, building careers, having stay at home dads, being strong single parents - because I want my daughter to have choices lots and lots of choices. Maybe she herself will grow up to be a Conservative one day, who knows?

 

LOL! My mom is very, very far left. Just so you know it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are for her because she is a Conservative, hey that's great. But I am fully convinced that the Republicans did this because they think Democratic women are stupid.

 

This is about as logical and insulting as saying that the democrats nominated Obama to play on any "white guilt" in republicans.

 

Issues people-keep your eye on the ball and find the candidate closest to your beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is about as logical and insulting as saying that the democrats nominated Obama to play on any "white guilt" in republicans.

 

Issues people-keep your eye on the ball and find the candidate closest to your beliefs.

 

If I had any rep left you'd definitely get some! It is hard to stay on the issues though with politics but you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't get that at all from this selection. I don't get it. Weren't you already an Obama supporter though before Palin was picked? I'm not sure what you have to be mad about. Oh, and do you have numbers on American women's views on Palin's positions? Thanks. :)

 

Anyone can go look at the exit polls from 2004. The Democrats won women's votes by at least 3 points I think, and MUCH higher between non-white or non-heterosexual women.

 

I am not crazy about Obama. He does not go far enough in protecting the equal rights of all our citizens. However, he is much better than John McCain who I feel is a threat to my daughter's future in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Women have had the right to and have been staying at home for many many more years than women have been accepted at Universities or having careers outside the home.

With our economy in so much trouble, less women have the option of staying at home. I know one woman who just recently had to go back to work due to rising energy, food, and other costs.

 

I consider myself VERY blessed to have a CHOICE to stay at home or work. I feel so blessed that I need to stand up for those women who don't have or don't make the same choice. I might not need quality day care, but every woman and child should have it. I can afford my own insurance, but those who cannot should not have to go without it.

 

I NEED those women out there working, building careers, having stay at home dads, being strong single parents - because I want my daughter to have choices lots and lots of choices. Maybe she herself will grow up to be a Conservative one day, who knows?

 

 

Re-read my post...

 

I'm not proposing to not support women who choose or need to work outside the home. I'm saying that feminists need to support both sides of the coin. Women who choose to stay home need to be respected not expected. And women who can manage to mix all of the above need plenty of support too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone can go look at the exit polls from 2004. The Democrats won women's votes by at least 3 points I think, and MUCH higher between non-white or non-heterosexual women.

 

I don't think those exit polls apply here. I think women are pretty divided and it's probably so close to being 50-50 that it isn't funny. But I don't have statistics to back it up. I'd be interested in finding out just how many women like Palin vs. don't and we don't have numbers for that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If she were..."?? You're implying that she does NOT care, does NOT understand American women, and does NOT care about other people's children, which is a mighty arrogant place to be. I can't speak for whether she does or does not.

 

Don't you see that there is more to it than this? I think it is extremely narrow-minded to say that the majority of women "want programs funded that will prevent women from getting pregnant", because while I certainly am in favor of not getting pg in the first place, it's about how to accomplish that. Not every woman follows the Dem logic that a government program funded by more taxes will solve the issue of millions of babies aborted for the sake of convenience. Conservatives who vote against this or that 'program' aren't voting against it because they are hard-hearted haters of special needs children who want women to have back-alley unsterile abortions. They vote against programs because they are full of pork, or because legislation and tax money doesn't change peoples' behavior in the bedroom.

 

Exactly.... my niece thought she was preggers and told my sister she was having an abortion. It was birth control for her rather than just being responsible. thankfully she was not pregnant. But then being responsible is really hard for some people. It's easy to say have a clinic open for it but it's entirely different when the reason you are there is to make it go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't mean to offend. But a lot of women are VERY angry about this choice. Like I said, I respect your opinion. I will fight to the death for your right to have it, but what I won't do is sit and pretend that Palin represents the views of the majority of American women.

 

she doesn't have to. The Republicans were wanting McCain to choose someone with a strong conservative view, not someone who would be "most liked by a majority of women."

 

If she cared and understood the majority of American women she would know that we don't want other women to have abortions, so we want programs funded that will prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place.

 

 

and some of those programs [bc] cause the death of a developing human. Some of us don't see that as a right.

 

 

She would not be in favor of women going into unsanitary, unsafe conditions for medical procedures because all the real clinics are illegal.

 

and someone who cared about HUMAN rights would be in favor of protecting human life, not letting humans be killed for convenience sake.

 

She would want those women who DO choose life to have quality daycare, quality schools, and health care for their children.

 

and she would not want to have to force other people to fund it. That's called stealing.

 

If she were a caring mother who cared about other people's children as much as her own, why would she get behind the senator with one of the WORST voting records against children in the Senate?

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

 

yup. You think the best way to address all those issues is to make other people pay for them. Conservatives don't.

 

 

If you are for her because she is a Conservative, hey that's great. But I am fully convinced that the Republicans did this because they think Democratic women are stupid. Goody for them that they got some Conservative backpats too.

 

Smoke and mirrors. (not that it doesn't go on on both sides)

 

and i would wonder how any person who ISN't stupid can't figure out that her blatant conservative values are what landed her the VP slot. This has been in the news for a long, long time, and she's not the only woman who was considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re-read my post...

 

I'm not proposing to not support women who choose or need to work outside the home. I'm saying that feminists need to support both sides of the coin. Women who choose to stay home need to be respected not expected. And women who can manage to mix all of the above need plenty of support too.

 

I stay at home. I can not think of anything I need as far as "support" for that besides a solid economy that allows my family to earn enough money to keep doing it.

 

A lot of my staunchly feminist friends (I am not one of them) are WAY into expanding opportunities for telecommuting, so that more women CAN choose to be at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm with you Peek. Who are all these women that don't like her? I want to know.

 

She is the opposite of Mccain and that is why she was chosen.

 

C O N S E R V A T I V E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the information, Rowan and Peek. I have a better understanding as to where y'all are coming from now.

 

Most welcome. God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Love this and thanks so much for sharing. You said it much better than I did.

 

Thank you. That's refreshing after getting accused of "trolling" last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Barack Obama was the most experienced candidate the Dems could come up with? He got the nomination because he excited people, who presumably liked his positions on the issues, right? I LIKE, LIKE, LIKE Palin and her positions on the issues. I don't care if she is a purple Martian. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. The Democrats have repeatedly made use of the race card, and even did it against Hillary, another candidate. That's politics. Palin's being a woman was an added plus politically. There will always be people who are swayed by race or gender identity politics. The fact is, McCain neeeded the enthusiasm of people in his own party, and he needs to peel off a few independents and Reagan Democrats. She is exciting, and can generate that enthusiasm in a way that a Libby Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchison can't. It is NOT all about her sex.

 

Barack Obama was not elected as the Democratic Candidate because of his race.

 

If Palin was picked because of HER and HER record and experience, not for political reasons because she is a woman, this would be a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Barack Obama was the most experienced candidate the Dems could come up with? He got the nomination because he excited people' date=' who presumably liked his positions on the issues, right? I LIKE, LIKE, LIKE Palin and her positions on the issues. I don't care if she is a purple Martian. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. The Democrats have repeatedly made use of the race card, and even did it against Hillary, another candidate. That's politics. Palin's being a woman was an added plus politically. There will always be people who are swayed by race or gender identity politics. The fact is, McCain neeeded the enthusiasm of people in his own party, and he needs to peel off a few independents and Reagan Democrats. She is exciting, and can generate that enthusiasm in a way that a Libby Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchison can't. It is NOT all about her sex.[/quote']

 

But see, you are smart enough to evaluate her past the skirt, and although I highly respect those who disagree, I am convinced the Republican machine is hoping that a lot of women won't be. Considering that 51% (I think that figure is right- if not it is very close) of women do not KNOW what Senator McCain's position is on female reproductive health issues, a lot of women are hoping that most women are as conscientious a voter as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heather,

I love you!!! You said exactly what I wanted to say!! I am very conservative, but I also want my daughters to have the same rights and opportunities as all their little boy cousins. That does not make me liberal!!

 

I did not feel the slap in the face that so many think we women should have felt! I am super excited!

 

I'll say it again: McCain/Palin '08

 

Awww, Nakia, I love you too girl! McCain/Palin 2008...WOO HOO!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stay at home. I can not think of anything I need as far as "support" for that besides a solid economy that allows my family to earn enough money to keep doing it.

 

A lot of my staunchly feminist friends (I am not one of them) are WAY into expanding opportunities for telecommuting, so that more women CAN choose to be at home.

 

 

I'm glad to hear that you have never been the recipient, either blatantly or subtly, of criticism for "betraying womankind" by choosing to stay at home. That has not been my experience nor that of many of my friends who have chosen to stay home to support their spouse and/or raise their children.

 

I'm pleased to hear that you have not been the victim of assumptions about your level of education, intelligence, or talents because you stay home. That no one implies that you are unable to enter the workforce due to your own inadequacies.

 

I too am at home at present because my husband fully supports my choice. I am fortunate to have that choice and as such need no support in the form of programs. (I'm sure many women might need other forms of support when choosing to live with one income.) I would however like to have respect for my choice; to have it recognized as a valid choice not a sign of weakness. That is not part of the feminist agenda. (But it should be...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, that is politics and it cuts both ways, race or gender. Do you really think that most women who see being pro-choice as an important issue won't make themselves acquainted with her position? I find your position to be condescending. And if that is really what the Republicans think, then they will deserve what they get won't they? But I think more highly, I guess, of most women's ability to see through this kind of stuff.

 

But see, you are smart enough to evaluate her past the skirt, and although I highly respect those who disagree, I am convinced the Republican machine is hoping that a lot of women won't be. Considering that 51% (I think that figure is right- if not it is very close) of women do not KNOW what Senator McCain's position is on female reproductive health issues, a lot of women are hoping that most women are as conscientious a voter as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again' date=' that is politics and it cuts both ways, race or gender. Do you really think that most women who see being pro-choice as an important issue won't make themselves acquainted with her position? I find your position to be condescending.[/quote']

 

I don't know what most women will do. I hope, no matter what their position on any issue, they are as smart as I think they are and will evaluate the candidates on the issues, regardless of what Karl Rove and Co. thinks they will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But see, you are smart enough to evaluate her past the skirt, and although I highly respect those who disagree, I am convinced the Republican machine is hoping that a lot of women won't be. Considering that 51% (I think that figure is right- if not it is very close) of women do not KNOW what Senator McCain's position is on female reproductive health issues, a lot of women are hoping that most women are as conscientious a voter as you are.

 

you mean like a lot of the democratic machine is hoping that they will look past Obama's far left views and little experience and latch on to being "part of history" and electing the first black prez? YOU might be able to look past his skin color, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people who won't.

 

I mean, sure, there might be some who really really like his ideas, or be swayed by his speechmaking, but a LOT of people have mentioned that it is going to be exciting voting for the first black prez......

does that make them stupid?

do you really think there's more people who can't look past the skirt than who can't look past the "historical moment of electing a black Prez"?

or do they just don't KNOW that he's eroding away individual liberties bit by bit?

or do we need to sit back and admit that maybe other Democrats/ republicans aren't necessarily quite as STUPID as we make them out to be?

would you like to see what the response would have been if he had selected Christine Todd Whitman??

 

i happen to know McCain's issues on abortion --that's why I'm NOT voting for him. he's too liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But see, you are smart enough to evaluate her past the skirt, and although I highly respect those who disagree, I am convinced the Republican machine is hoping that a lot of women won't be. Considering that 51% (I think that figure is right- if not it is very close) of women do not KNOW what Senator McCain's position is on female reproductive health issues, a lot of women are hoping that most women are as conscientious a voter as you are.

 

Link to the source of your stats please?

 

Thanks.:001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you mean like a lot of the democratic machine is hoping that they will look past Obama's far left views and little experience and latch on to being "part of history" and electing the first black prez? YOU might be able to look past his skin color, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people who won't.

 

Yes, my husband and I are very worried that some people will get in the booth and not be able to vote for a black man. Actually, the people I know with veiws to the far left don't like Obama much. I also do not think he goes far enough on certain issues to protect people's rights, but he's much better than McCain on those issues.

 

I mean, sure, there might be some who really really like his ideas, or be swayed by his speechmaking, but a LOT of people have mentioned that it is going to be exciting voting for the first black prez......

does that make them stupid?

I think it makes them unconscientious voters, yes. I think that failure should be laid at the doorstep of the Dept. of Education. But, since I believe the government really wants a whole lot of Americans to be stupid (hence easily led) I will give them gold stars for doing a bang up job. :lol:

 

 

do you really think there's more people who can't look past the skirt than who can't look past the "historical moment of electing a black Prez"?

or do they just don't KNOW that he's eroding away individual liberties bit by bit?

It's John McCain who wants to take away my daughter's right to love whomever she chooses and to be in charge of her own reproductive heath, and wants her held to the standard of someone else's religious beliefs that are not even shared by everyone who professes to be of that same religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you. That's refreshing after getting accused of "trolling" last night.

 

Oh my..... that is awful. I'm sure there is name calling for me too. I tend to be blunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just seeing things a little further and raising the issues that would present themselves. It's foreign policy and how other countries view women in power. It is what it is. They have a different view of women.

 

Other countries have gotten past the gender issues - Canada, Great Britain, Argentina... to name a few. The US is behind the times as far as electing a female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the people I know with veiws to the far left don't like Obama much. I also do not think he goes far enough on certain issues to protect people's rights, but he's much better than McCain on those issues.

 

I would LOVE to vote for a minority that has the views I like to see in leadership. It just isn't gonna be Obama ;)

and I hear ya about the far left--that's why Nader is still running.....

 

I think it makes them unconscientious voters, yes. I think that failure should be laid at the doorstep of the Dept. of Education. But, since I believe the government really wants a whole lot of Americans to be stupid (hence easily led) I will give them gold stars for doing a bang up job. :lol:

 

ok, ok, you hit my weak spot. i MUST agree w/ ya on that one! :lol:

 

 

It's John McCain who wants to take away my daughter's right to love whomever she chooses ....

 

actually, nobody is going to take away your daughter's [or anyone else's] right to love whomever they want. But there will be a limit on how that love/relationship will be legally accepted. Polygamists already encountered this: they have found that they can certainly have whatever kinds of relationships they want, they just don't have the right to insist that they be legally recognized relationships. Now I'll confess that Constitutionally, i agree with labeling ALL marriages as basic civil unions. If the right wing wants to keep the title of marriage, then send the term marriage to the churches and adopt a legal standing of civil union. But that's fodder for another thread.

 

....and to be in charge of her own reproductive heath, and wants her held to the standard of someone else's religious beliefs that are not even shared by everyone who professes to be of that same religion.

 

and she can always be in charge of her own reproductive health. Unless the gvt starts doing forced inseminations or forced abortions. ack. But I don't believe that ANYone has a right to intentionally kill another human for convenience sake --that's not reproductive health: that's murder. That is outside the realm of religious or secular "belief" --that is scientific fact. and again, fodder for another thread. ;)

 

{{but we're making progress! we agreed on something, lol}}

 

Never Mind-- thanks gals!

ack! I have 666 rep points! someone-- rep me quick! I'm sporting the Rep of the Beast! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it is my opinion that it's a slap in the face to all women, and all we have fought for for the last 100 years. Sure, he picked a woman, but he picked the one that conservative men are least likely to be threatened by, one that "knows her place" so to speak.

 

 

 

I wonder what the Republican men she successfully went up against in Alaska would say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am intrigued by this idea. It might prevent the church from getting entangled in the civil realm when trying to enforce its own standards. It is increasingly difficult for the church to do this.

 

Now I'll confess that Constitutionally, i agree with labeling ALL marriages as basic civil unions. If the right wing wants to keep the title of marriage, then send the term marriage to the churches and adopt a legal standing of civil union. But that's fodder for another thread.

 

. ;)

 

{{but we're making progress! we agreed on something, lol}}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stay and chat, too much to do, but I wanted to add my .02 to no one in particular. I can't understand how people think that Barak has gotten this far because people want to vote for the first black President. Given the racial climate of America and the recent treatment of young black teenagers in the court systems, this seems totally improbable.

 

Racism is so legitimized and institutionalized in this country; it is a part of the fabric of America. It just didn't disappear over night so quickly and completely that all of a sudden, everyone wants a black president. The idea is laughable. In fact, I believe, there are people plotting his assassination right now.

 

And then there are people, like me, who would love to vote for Barack, but can't because his politics is appalling to me. I cannot vote for him. As much as it hurt me to think I was supporting the same old system that has done very little to change things for my sons and nephews, I was going to vote for McCain.

 

It has done my heart good to see that he has selected Palin as his VP. First and foremost, she's conservative. Her lack of experience bothers me, but not nearly as much as the liberal agenda bothers me. If she's a smart lady, while she hasn't been involved in international affairs, she's been doing her homework and has been reading, studying, and keeping abreast of current international affairs.

 

I assume McCain checked into this; I know I would have.

 

ETA I believe that racism is so institutionalized in this country that it took a person of African and American decent to make it this far. An African American of this country that has grown up in this country, that has a history of slavery in their past, on a whole bears the burdens of the past and the insecurities that go along with bearing that burden and often has self-imposed barriers that would not allow him or her to have made it this far. Ask me how I know. :)

 

I have known a few Africans from our current neighborhood and from when I was in college, and I have noticed in them a relaxation and an acceptance of themselves that I don't often see in African Americans. (And that lack of ease and lack of self-acceptance is something that is taught.) It comes from accepting your self as being equal with all races. But that isn't taught to young black children even today because parents want to prepare their children for the harsh realities that await them as black adults. To be too comfortable can make your life too difficult. ***Can you image the importance of a black man being in the white house to those that don't have that self-acceptance?*** Even if they are voting for him because he is black, and I'm sure that some blacks are, they are trying to vote away and erase the prejudice that STILL pervades America. And that is not a vote of ignorance, but a vote for change. To think that these people are simply happy to vote for a black man is overly-simplistic and ignores the realities that too many black people still face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I don't believe that ANYone has a right to intentionally kill another human for convenience sake --that's not reproductive health: that's murder. That is outside the realm of religious or secular "belief" --that is scientific fact. and again, fodder for another thread. ;)

 

Curious- who do you think should be prosecutable if abortion were illegal? Women would still be getting abortions, so if they get caught should the woman be prosecuted, the doctor, the baby's father if he drove her to a back ally? Do you think the death penalty should be imposed? Would it be first degree murder?

 

I know a women who is adamantly anti-choice and she thinks that if a woman aborts a fetus she should get the death penalty because it would be premeditated murder. That one makes ZERO sense to me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious- who do you think should be prosecutable if abortion were illegal? Women would still be getting abortions, so if they get caught should the woman be prosecuted, the doctor, the baby's father if he drove her to a back ally? Do you think the death penalty should be imposed? Would it be first degree murder?

 

I know a women who is adamantly anti-choice and she thinks that if a woman aborts a fetus she should get the death penalty because it would be premeditated murder. That one makes ZERO sense to me at all.

 

No, I am against the death penalty. But yes, if abortion were ILLEGAL and a woman were to obtain an ILLEGAL abortion then she has committed a crime and should be punished but not by the death penalty. That seems sort of hypocritical to me.

 

ETA: If a doctor performs an illegal abortion then he committed a crime as well. If the father drove her there then that would make him an accomplice just as the getaway car driver is punished in a bank robbery...but I still don't believe in the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I don't believe that ANYone has a right to intentionally kill another human for convenience sake --that's not reproductive health: that's murder. That is outside the realm of religious or secular "belief" --that is scientific fact. and again, fodder for another thread. ;)

 

:iagree: Big ol' rep coming your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I am against the death penalty. But yes, if abortion were ILLEGAL and a woman were to obtain an ILLEGAL abortion then she has committed a crime and should be punished but not by the death penalty. That seems sort of hypocritical to me.

 

ETA: If a doctor performs an illegal abortion then he committed a crime as well. If the father drove her there then that would make him an accomplice just as the getaway car driver is punished in a bank robbery...but I still don't believe in the death penalty.

 

Yeah, seems very hypocritical to me too. Thanks for sharing that POV.

 

Another viewpoint I have heard would be to protect doctors from prosecution so that IF a woman was willing to serve - what a year in jail? - to have an abortion, she could still go to a clean place with a licensed physician. That one makes no sense to me either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should probably just pm you. In any event, your post was quite insightful. It reminded me of similar comments made by two Carribean law students that I tutored while in school. Both females; I was surprised when one expressed she would not stay and work in the US because of the pervasive racism that she didn't feel at home.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, seems very hypocritical to me too. Thanks for sharing that POV.

 

Another viewpoint I have heard would be to protect doctors from prosecution so that IF a woman was willing to serve - what a year in jail? - to have an abortion, she could still go to a clean place with a licensed physician. That one makes no sense to me either.

 

That's just nuts. :001_huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitated to be so transparent, but why not, right? Anyway, there is a certain conversation that has ocurred in my home and in many movies, so I assume it is common in most black peoples' homes. It's basically the indoctrination of the phrase, "No, you can't!"

 

It goes along with any conversation that has to do with behavior that draws attention to ones self that would be an indication of one being out of one's place. If you get my point. I have heard this all of my life, "You can't do __________(fill in the blank) because you're black."

 

And I didn't even realize how the training has been so absorbed into the culture until I was home from college and playing with my nephew who was about 3 at the time and his aversion to the police. My 3 yo nephew was afraid of the police. Children are supposed to be taught that the police are their friends; that is not the case for all people. Black men are taught to fear the police and to submit big time to any type of questioning because it could easily mean jail. Even a black pre-schooler knows this.

 

I think it's Barack's subliminal message behind his phrase "Yes, we can!" Because it's meant to undo all of the "No, you can't!"'s that are so much a part of the traditional black experience.

 

But this is my experience and it is becoming less true every day. My nephew and his generation are more at ease and accepting of themselves just as my generation is more confident than that of my mother's. Every day is a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very sorry that that has been your experience. It is very sad. I hope you know that my voting against Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with his race. I am issue driven. I voted against Kerry and Gore for the same reasons. I would love to vote for Michael Steele one day. Not because I think he is anymore deserving than any other Republican candidate, but just because I would like to get this monkey off of America's back, KWIM?

 

I hesitated to be so transparent, but why not, right? Anyway, there is a certain conversation that has ocurred in my home and in many movies, so I assume it is common in most black peoples' homes. It's basically the indoctrination of the phrase, "No, you can't!"

 

It goes along with any conversation that has to do with behavior that draws attention to ones self that would be an indication of one being out of one's place. If you get my point. I have heard this all of my life, "You can't do __________(fill in the blank) because you're black."

 

And I didn't even realize how the training has been so absorbed into the culture until I was home from college and playing with my nephew who was about 3 at the time and his aversion to the police. My 3 yo nephew was afraid of the police. Children are supposed to be taught that the police are their friends; that is not the case for all people. Black men are taught to fear the police and to submit big time to any type of questioning because it could easily mean jail. Even a black pre-schooler knows this.

 

I think it's Barack's subliminal message behind his phrase "Yes, we can!" Because it's meant to undo all of the "No, you can't!"'s that are so much a part of the traditional black experience.

 

But this is my experience and it is becoming less true every day. My nephew and his generation are more at ease and accepting of themselves just as my generation is more confident than that of my mother's. Every day is a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are few things in this world that anger me more than racism. That being said, I think a lot of people who feel that way (myself included) could do a lot more to help rather than just sitting back as we often do and thinking that just because we don't discriminate that we are doing our part to help bring about more equality. As much as I hate it, I will never know what it actually feels like to be judged simply because of the color of my skin and never could. I do not know what it is like to have a member of my family enslaved. Messages like this remind me that I can always do a little more, grow a little more, and openly love a little more.

 

Thank you, Kimber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not voting for Barack either, but I pray for his safety. I'm pro-life and could never support him in his goal. I just think I understand him a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not voting for Barack either, but I pray for his safety. I'm pro-life and could never support him in his goal. I just think I understand him a little bit.

 

I know what you mean. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but I don't want to see him dead. Anyone with the idea to take him out is just wrong. It makes me wonder how far we have really come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind words. My white husband wasn't all that aware of black issues until we had kids. It just wasn't his experience. And I get that, and I am glad that our kids don't have to deal with all of that stuff the way I did.

 

Seeing Barack's achievements has opened my eyes to the realization that much of the oppression against blacks is self-imposed, not all but a lot. In an attempt at self-preservation, we've tried to protect ourselves from the prejudice out there by hiding within ourselves. Seeing Barack, free of that, and what he's been able to accomplish because of that is huge.

 

I just don't want him to win. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious- who do you think should be prosecutable if abortion were illegal? Women would still be getting abortions, so if they get caught should the woman be prosecuted, the doctor, the baby's father if he drove her to a back ally? Do you think the death penalty should be imposed? Would it be first degree murder?

 

I know a women who is adamantly anti-choice and she thinks that if a woman aborts a fetus she should get the death penalty because it would be premeditated murder. That one makes ZERO sense to me at all.

 

 

well, since I am against the death penalty, i would disagree with that.

 

But yes, it would be treated as the death of a human. We already have various options for how to rule on a homicide, including involuntary manslaughter [accidents, not normal miscarriages], self defense [life of the mother], and degrees of murder. Conspiracy charges would be expected. There's a wide span in the area of penalties, usually determined by a proportioinal use of force [see capitalism.org for more about that].

 

so if abortion DOES become illegal, YES-- doctors and women will need to decide if they are ready to take the penalty for the intentional, illegal killing of a human.

 

i have also stated that to allow maximum reconciling of the rights of the two individuals, i would support removal of the developing human, as long as that removal makes allowances for advances in technology that would eventually have a successful transplant of an embryo/fetus to an artificial/surrogate womb. At this point, that would mean --by default-- that the developing human dies -simply because we don't yet have that technology. But i would be supportive of allowing a legal removal that does not tear a human limb from limb nor kill it with chemical burns to get it out. Kinda like I support the laws that allow a mother to abandon her child at a hospital, police station, or fire station w/o legal consequence --the safety of the child is of utmost importance. Each abortion would have to meet legal requirements of attempting to maintain the right to life of the developing human. I know that sounds really Far Out There now, and i'm likely making some Serious Pro-Lifers very angry, but truly-- i can see the technology advancing at a rapid rate to make this possible.

 

i do think that the spread of extensive knowledge of just what is occurring during the development of a human, combined w/ the legal requirements and full disclosure each abortion must undergo, would make a difference in the number of abortions AND recognize every human's right to life.

 

So in Amy's Perfect World, induced abortions [intentional removal of an embryo/fetus] would still be legal,

but they would be SAFE for ALL parties involved, including the developing human.

the only abortions that would be prosecuted would be ones that intentionally killed the embryo/fetus --

the kind we have now.

 

But all this centers around a concept that Human Rights exist because we are HUMAN --even little tiny humans are still HUMAN.

It centers around the law recognizing -and protecting- that right to life of even the smallest developing humans while protecting the right of the individual woman to be an individual woman.

It allows for an increase in technology and medical knowledge

There are very few duties i feel the government needs to do, but protecting the life of its citizens is its FIRST one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

i have also stated that to allow maximum reconciling of the rights of the two individuals, i would support removal of the developing human, as long as that removal makes allowances for advances in technology that would eventually have a successful transplant of an embryo/fetus to an artificial/surrogate womb. At this point, that would mean --by default-- that the developing human dies -simply because we don't yet have that technology. But i would be supportive of allowing a legal removal that does not tear a human limb from limb nor kill it with chemical burns to get it out. Kinda like I support the laws that allow a mother to abandon her child at a hospital, police station, or fire station w/o legal consequence --the safety of the child is of utmost importance. Each abortion would have to meet legal requirements of attempting to maintain the right to life of the developing human. I know that sounds really Far Out There now, and i'm likely making some Serious Pro-Lifers very angry, but truly-- i can see the technology advancing at a rapid rate to make this possible.

 

 

So in Amy's Perfect World, induced abortions [intentional removal of an embryo/fetus] would still be legal,

but they would be SAFE for ALL parties involved, including the developing human.

the only abortions that would be prosecuted would be ones that intentionally killed the embryo/fetus --

the kind we have now.

 

Would you mind elaborating on this a little. You would support removal of a fetus if the ability to medical transplant the fetus to another womb was available? Fetus adoption? You would support that now even though the fetus would because medical science has not yet successfully transplanted a fetus as long as we were working towards that end?

 

I've not heard of this and am confused.

 

Thanks,

Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, since I am against the death penalty, i would disagree with that.

 

But yes, it would be treated as the death of a human. We already have various options for how to rule on a homicide, including involuntary manslaughter [accidents, not normal miscarriages], self defense [life of the mother], and degrees of murder. Conspiracy charges would be expected. There's a wide span in the area of penalties, usually determined by a proportioinal use of force [see capitalism.org for more about that].

 

so if abortion DOES become illegal, YES-- doctors and women will need to decide if they are ready to take the penalty for the intentional, illegal killing of a human.

 

i have also stated that to allow maximum reconciling of the rights of the two individuals, i would support removal of the developing human, as long as that removal makes allowances for advances in technology that would eventually have a successful transplant of an embryo/fetus to an artificial/surrogate womb. At this point, that would mean --by default-- that the developing human dies -simply because we don't yet have that technology. But i would be supportive of allowing a legal removal that does not tear a human limb from limb nor kill it with chemical burns to get it out. Kinda like I support the laws that allow a mother to abandon her child at a hospital, police station, or fire station w/o legal consequence --the safety of the child is of utmost importance. Each abortion would have to meet legal requirements of attempting to maintain the right to life of the developing human. I know that sounds really Far Out There now, and i'm likely making some Serious Pro-Lifers very angry, but truly-- i can see the technology advancing at a rapid rate to make this possible.

 

i do think that the spread of extensive knowledge of just what is occurring during the development of a human, combined w/ the legal requirements and full disclosure each abortion must undergo, would make a difference in the number of abortions AND recognize every human's right to life.

 

So in Amy's Perfect World, induced abortions [intentional removal of an embryo/fetus] would still be legal,

but they would be SAFE for ALL parties involved, including the developing human.

the only abortions that would be prosecuted would be ones that intentionally killed the embryo/fetus --

the kind we have now.

 

But all this centers around a concept that Human Rights exist because we are HUMAN --even little tiny humans are still HUMAN.

It centers around the law recognizing -and protecting- that right to life of even the smallest developing humans while protecting the right of the individual woman to be an individual woman.

It allows for an increase in technology and medical knowledge

There are very few duties i feel the government needs to do, but protecting the life of its citizens is its FIRST one.

 

Peek,

 

I have never heard of a view like this but it is something really worth thinking about. The idea of transplanting the developing child is a radical idea that I have never even heard mentioned before. I am adamantly pro-life but I see how this is a way to preserve life but still allow for freedom of choice. It basically sounds like adoption of a child before they are born. (Although I have to admit, I really don't think I could bring myself to support the work that would need to be done to gain the technological advances needed to make this possible so..... that kind of leads no where). Trying not to sound completely stupid here but.... is this a view that you have kind of come to on your own or is their work actually being done to try to make this possible. I'd really like to learn more about this idea.

 

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...