PALIN ADMITS HER 17-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT

[Baruch Menachem]

I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them.   She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on.  And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before.   But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now.   She can probably still do school.  But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made.   It is a lot harder now.

Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster.  The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.

[MrsSmith]

I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them.   She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on.  And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before.   But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now.   She can probably still do school.  But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made.   It is a lot harder now.

Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster.  The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.

Fair enough.  Life will be harder.  Her life does not need to be any kind of disaster...at least, once the media back off and let her have one. 

[Lanie]

I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them.   She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on.  And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before.   But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now.   She can probably still do school.  But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made.   It is a lot harder now.

Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster.  The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.

Fair enough.  Life will be harder.  Her life does not need to be any kind of disaster...at least, once the media back off and let her have one. 

The media won't back off of her for possibly four to six years. 

[jtyangel]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

[debk]

I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them.   She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on.  And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before.   But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now.   She can probably still do school.  But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made.   It is a lot harder now.

Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster.  The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.

Why is it the girl is always the "bad" one who has sex before marriage?

She obviously didn't have it by herself as she wouldn't be pregnant if she had.

They either didn't use birth control...or it didn't work correctly. It doesn't make either one a bad person.

The fact that they are dealing with the pregnancy and continuing on with life with baby is what's important.

Drive by any high school these days and you will see pregnant girls attending high school, pregnant girls also attend college and continuing education. Mine was pregnant while finishing up her Radiology Tech degree. She not only graduated with honors, she passed her licensing exam .....all while pregnant. Oh, and she wasn't married either.
She got married a month before my grandson was born.

Pregnancy does not stop a woman from doing anything she wants to achieve these days.

[Schadenfreude]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

[MrsSmith]

I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them.   She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on.  And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before.   But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now.   She can probably still do school.  But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made.   It is a lot harder now.

Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster.  The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.

Fair enough.  Life will be harder.  Her life does not need to be any kind of disaster...at least, once the media back off and let her have one. 

The media won't back off of her for possibly four to six years. 

Well, if Levi and Bristol have any sense, as soon as she gets her diploma, they'll load up a snowmobile and head out where the media can't find them.  In Alaska, that shouldn't be too hard.   

[Baruch Menachem]

I think what differentiates "real men" like Sarah & Bristol Palin from "crybaby girls" like Joe Biden is how they face up to what happens to them.   She did stupid, (Sex outside of marriage ) there are consequences, you face the music, adjust, and move on.  And in quite a lot of cases, triumph over what you did before.   But still, for what was planned before, that is all over now.   She can probably still do school.  But she has to face the reality of the choices she has made.   It is a lot harder now.

Just to re emphasize, I am not saying the kid is the disaster.  The decision she made not to keep her knees together was the disaster.

Why is it the girl is always the "bad" one who has sex before marriage?

She obviously didn't have it by herself as she wouldn't be pregnant if she had.

They either didn't use birth control...or it didn't work correctly. It doesn't make either one a bad person.

The fact that they are dealing with the pregnancy and continuing on with life with baby is what's important.

Drive by any high school these days and you will see pregnant girls attending high school, pregnant girls also attend college and continuing education. Mine was pregnant while finishing up her Radiology Tech degree. She not only graduated with honors, she passed her licensing exam .....all while pregnant. Oh, and she wasn't married either.
She got married a month before my grandson was born.

Pregnancy does not stop a woman from doing anything she wants to achieve these days.

The reality here is the girl is occupied for nine months.  We can't change biology.  Which is what the left wants to do.

I think one of the things that makes the scary fire in Obama is the fact that dad vanished.   Which dads can still do.  So the girls still have to be careful.

Lets not forget that kids are a huge responsibility.  Full time in themselves.  School is full time too.  A job is full time as well.  How many people can handle one job?  Two?  Three is killer.  Bristol has a supportive mom and the full weight of the Alaska State Police to make sure things work out ok.  Most kids in her situation are not anywhere near as lucky.   People do what they need to do, but it is never easy when you do it the right way.  Doing it the hard way..... She should have thought it over.

[ReardenSteel]

I think Obama and the mainstream feminists do indeed look at children as punishment and obstacles to self-fulfillment. And then you have Sarah come along, a woman who in spite of life's challenges, appears to live a rich and joy-filled life. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I have seen it time and time again, the left is nothing if not miserable.

In a word, no.

Why They Hate Her
Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left.
by Jeffrey Bell

Though earlier versions of feminism tended to embrace children and elevate motherhood, the more adversarial feminism that gained a mass base in virtually every affluent democracy beginning in the 1970s preached that children and childbearing were the central instrumentality of men's subjugation of women.

The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left. How galling it will be to Sarah Palin's many new enemies if she survives this assault and prevails. If she does, her success may be an important moment in the struggle to shape not just America's politics but its culture.

[Schadenfreude]

I think Obama and the mainstream feminists do indeed look at children as punishment and obstacles to self-fulfillment. And then you have Sarah come along, a woman who in spite of life's challenges, appears to live a rich and joy-filled life. Am I being harsh? Perhaps, but I have seen it time and time again, the left is nothing if not miserable.

In a word, no.

Why They Hate Her
Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left.
by Jeffrey Bell

Though earlier versions of feminism tended to embrace children and elevate motherhood, the more adversarial feminism that gained a mass base in virtually every affluent democracy beginning in the 1970s preached that children and childbearing were the central instrumentality of men's subjugation of women.

The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left. How galling it will be to Sarah Palin's many new enemies if she survives this assault and prevails. If she does, her success may be an important moment in the struggle to shape not just America's politics but its culture.

I swear, I did not Joebidenize.  But that really sums it up, doesn't it.

[Lanie]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

Um, I hate to tell ya, but if you're going on brain activity in a person to qualify AS a person, then by your standard, abortions should be outlawed after 40 days.

[Tess Anderson]

Yeah, a "sentinent human being" is a rather high bar.

This is seeing the Roe Effect in action - if either Sarah or her daughter were "pro-choice", abortion +2.

If When McCain-Palin win....those reporters who have been evilly ugly toward Bristol and her boyfriend and their baby....will be falling all over themselves and offering obscene amounts of money to photograph the three of them.

People aren't remembering that Alaska is the "last frontier". I'm sure there are a lot of girls up there who chose to have children when they are young. This is not the worst thing in the world. The girl got pregnant....she didn't commit a felony.

I agree, but it is funny to see the left get so moralistic over this - you'd think it was 1938 or something, even though the kids are "doing the right thing" and getting married. And they call us prudes.

[Lanie]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

Um, I hate to tell ya, but if you're going on brain activity in a person to qualify AS a person, then by your standard, abortions should be outlawed after 40 days.

Yeah, but you still don't have that awareness thing going on. The person who is simply asleep actually can hear stuff going on in the room. If you touch them, they can feel it in their sleep (might work it into the dream). But a second trimester or end of first trimester, there really isn't that type of brain activity going on.

[rich_t]

If you touch them, they can feel it in their sleep

I tickled the feet of both of my kids before they were born.  Trust me.. they could feel it, they would move their foot away.

Have you ever given birth?  To a human baby that is?

[MrsSmith]

Yeah, but you still don't have that awareness thing going on. The person who is simply asleep actually can hear stuff going on in the room. If you touch them, they can feel it in their sleep (might work it into the dream). But a second trimester or end of first trimester, there really isn't that type of brain activity going on.

When does the fetus's brain begin to work?

Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it.

Brain Development

Another interesting point...

Frequently Asked Questions

The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life (just three weeks after conception), but in many ways, brain development is a lifelong project. That is because the same events that shape the brain during development are also responsible for storing information—new skills and memories—throughout life.

You're nearing 30, aren't you, Bridget/Lanie?  Maybe you should work on that development...it gets harder as you age.  You've been consistently wrong on almost every aspect of fetal development all along, and you aren't getting any better.

[Schadenfreude]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?

If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.

[Wretched Excess]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

Um, I hate to tell ya, but if you're going on brain activity in a person to qualify AS a person, then by your standard, abortions should be outlawed after 40 days.

point well spoken

[Lanie]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?

If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.

Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.

[Schadenfreude]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?

If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.

Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.

I don't like the pill, but I would be willing to compromise on that point if it meant reducing the ridiculous number of unborn children who are aborted each year. When was the last time abortion rights groups ever made a compromise when it came to limiting the number of abortions? I know of none offhand. 

[rich_t]

I am a full supporter of birth control... Be it condom, BC pill, diaphram etc...

I think abstinence works best when used...

But I am a realist about it.

[MrsSmith]

Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.

I'm sure you are aware that many, many pro-life people do not use the pill for exactly this reason.  However, it is also true that most would compromise on this issue...at least it isn't a deliberate murder of an implanted and growing human infant.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

If I asked another pro-choicer that same question, odds are they would give me a completely different answer. In fact, I bet there are as many answers to that question as there are pro-choicers. Also, their answer has changed over the years as well.... remember when they sold the fetus as an undifferentiated mass of tissue?

If you asked a pro-lifer this question, this answer has always and will always remain the same, at the moment of conception.

Conception? Well, I hope you don't mind giving up hormonal birth control then since it can stop ovulation, fertilization, or implantation.

Um, in that stage, I guess you could say "it's not a human" yet since it'd be stopping implantation. A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human. Once fertilization begins, in my book, yeah, a human has started.

Didn't we go on and on about this with ya over at Gator's board many a many times???? Or has it not sunk in yet?

[MrsSmith]

Um, in that stage, I guess you could say "it's not a human" yet since it'd be stopping implantation. A sperm is not a human, an egg is not a human. Once fertilization begins, in my book, yeah, a human has started.

Didn't we go on and on about this with ya over at Gator's board many a many times???? Or has it not sunk in yet?

Implantation happens after conception, when the developing child implants in the uterus.  It is true that hormonal birth control can stop the implantation, if it fails to stop the egg from dropping initially.  It makes the uterus a hostile environment.  That is not a good thing, of course, but there really is no way to know if an egg was released or fertilized, so most of us would compromise on that.  At least that is not a deliberate act to end the life of a child that is known to be growing and developing.

[jtyangel]

I can't wait for the McCain/Palin camp to throw Obama's "punished with a baby" remarks back in his face.

I don't think Obama sees children as punishment. Most parents don't want their kids to have a baby too soon. I think it would be best if all the parents involved agreed to not talk about the the other peron's kid and not try to make examples out of their own kids. I've personally have been pissed off at how closely Bristol (who isn't running) is being watched (actually, I've been pissed at all the targeting of Palin and her family in just two weeks time). I'm hoping when she has the baby, she tells reporters to piss off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"But, if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

His words.  His own words.  Babies and STD's are punishments.  Go listen to him yourself.  This is the same man who argued against the Born Alive Infact Law, saying that it might damage abortion rights, even after the language was changed to match the federal law, to guarantee that would not damage those "rights."   

I honestly think Obama saw it in the since that he didn't want to see his daughters get pregnant at a young age. Poor choice of words of course.

I read the act he vetoed. Even though is says in one area that Roe can't be overturned because of it, it's also saying in another area that the embryo/fetus would be declared a person if born in "any" stage of pregnancy. That leaves the question of why an embryo or fetus shouldn't be declared a person before birth. With that being said, I do think he shouldn't have vetoed it, and that actually is one of the reasons I changed my mind about voting for him. Pro-choice is supposed to be about before birth, not after. I don't see any parents saying they don't want their born child to be helped (because most third trimester abortions are done for tragic reasons, not out of a want), but that's not the point.

That's bullshit Lanie and I suspect you know it.

Schade is right, whatever 'tragedy' would explain a 3rd term abortion can also be accomplished/remedied by LIVE BIRTH OF THE INFANT. The infant is sustainable with assitance at that point and usually the relief the mother needs is from the pressure pregnancy puts on the body itself. There is absolutely no justification for such a procedure when the baby can be born alive.

It's crazy with all the information readily available that people not only consume, but echo the BS propaganda from the abortion rights groups.... I mean how fricking many times can they be patently wrong and still retain credibility with anybody? 


Note to Lanie: Open up a book on human development and tell me at what point an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights. Go ahead, give me that point in time and your rationale for choosing it. Because let's face it, it's pretty important when you are going to end someone's life to get it right.... correct?

I already have. That's why I think the third trimester should be the cutoff point (except for life endangerment, and I think only a doctor should decide when that's necessary). MAYBE the end of the second trimester. By then, the cerebral cortex is bringing consciousness.

And yes, I've already heard the "Can we shoot a person while they are asleep" argument. There's a difference. Sleep actually is still a form of consciousness because the brain is working, it does have awareness, etc.

I see you skipped over what I said. MOST, if not all, 'life endangerment' situations are remedied by the birth of the child. The child does not need to be deceased to accomplish this so please tell me again why the deliberate extermination of a final trimester baby is allowed when delivering that baby alive accomplishes the same end? A mother still needs to go through either a c-section or labor to deliver a baby either way so I ask you, why kill the baby to accomplish the same end?