Palin: I understand the temptation of abortion

posted at 12:15 pm on May 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Sarah Palin’s address to the Susan B. Anthony List Celebration of Life breakfast today gives a good emphasis on the earlier Gallup poll showing continuing strength in pro-life identification. No one in the pro-life movement believes that there are always easy answers, and Palin uses an example from her own life when she understood the fear that women have that can lead them to destroying the life inside of them:

Speaking at the Susan B. Anthony List Celebration of Life breakfast, Palin said that when she learned during her pregnancy that Trig would be born with Down syndrome, she “had no idea how I was going to handle the situation of raising a special needs child.”

She said she was struck by “not knowing if my heart was ready, not knowing if I was patient and nurturing enough.”

While she had previously believed that “God will never give me something I cannot handle,” she said, she was left thinking, “I don’t think I can handle this. This wasn’t part of my life’s plan.”

As a busy mother who already had four kids and who was serving as Alaska governor, she wondered how she would handle raising the child, she said. She wondered if her sister, who has a child with autism, would have been better equipped to raise him.

Palin said the experience helped her understand how a woman would consider “even for a split second” having an abortion, “because I’ve been there.”

Many of us have “been there,” a point missed by those who accuse pro-life activists of heartlessness. I rarely speak of my own “been there” moment, mainly because it’s really not my story anyway. When your high-school student comes home and tells you that his girlfriend is pregnant, many things run through your mind. I’d be lying if I said that abortion never came into those thoughts; however, as with Palin, it had to do with fear of the unknown and of our my own strength. I never considered it an option, however, and instead provided as much love and support for my son as I could in order to allow the best choice to be made. Our granddaughter turns eight years old this month, and is a testimony to the blessings that supporting life over fear can bring.

The Right Scoop has all of Palin’s speech in this video clip. As she did in Chicago, Palin uses the speech to also defend her endorsement of Carly Fiorina.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

This is one of those areas, like food pantries and homeless shelters, where I’m in favor of government helping fund a service but private orgs (incl. faith-based programs) delivering it.

alwaysfiredup on May 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

or consideration for any of your views–in return, is there.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Giving him respect is one thing, but consideration for his views, assuming you mean general pro-life views, is another altogether unless you think it’s alright to use one person as an example of an entire group of people.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM

-Brain waves, heart beat, ability to feel pain. Defined.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Also – my little bulldog has brainwaves, heartbeat, and the abitlity to feel pain. And I’m willing to bet that those characteristics are more sophisticated in her than in a fetus. So you cannot really use those as a method to define the humanizing point – since those characteristics are shared by virtually all animal life on this planet.

It really simple – if you want to kill human fetuses then you need to establish a point at which those fetuses become human. I’m not going to do the work for you. And once you’ve established that point – how about getting out there and convincing the rest of society – because it’s really the societal consensus on this that counts.

By the way – the societal consensus in my state is that abortion is murder. That is why there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state and it’s surrounded virtually with concertino wire.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM

This is one of those areas, like food pantries and homeless shelters, where I’m in favor of government helping fund a service but private orgs (incl. faith-based programs) delivering it.

alwaysfiredup on May 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

That’s my second preference. Government seems to mess up most things it directly runs.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

There’s an easy way to find out. Check the DNA. It’s certainly not a beaver, although one might have been involved.

Daggett on May 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Well done sir.

Heralder on May 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Also – my little bulldog has brainwaves, heartbeat, and the abitlity to feel pain. And I’m willing to bet that those characteristics are more sophisticated in her than in a fetus. So you cannot really use those as a method to define the humanizing point – since those characteristics are shared by virtually all animal life on this planet.

It really simple – if you want to kill human fetuses then you need to establish a point at which those fetuses become human. I’m not going to do the work for you. And once you’ve established that point – how about getting out there and convincing the rest of society – because it’s really the societal consensus on this that counts.

By the way – the societal consensus in my state is that abortion is murder. That is why there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state and it’s surrounded virtually with concertino wire.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM

–I’m happy with it. And it’s what I’m comfortable using.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

–That would cover only about 2% of them. Pro-life scientists have said pain is only felt around the twentieth week at the earliest.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Wait … your grand logic is based on a feeling of pain? Pain is what makes us human?

Hmmm …

You might think that over again.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM

–I’m happy with it. And it’s what I’m comfortable using.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Very cool – until you realize the part where your opinion doesn’t count.

It societal consensus that counts here. And it seems to be turning against the abortionists.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM

OK, then make that the issue.

I’ll vote against you everytime.

AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM

A troll, or just plain stupid??

In your first comment you said that abortion doesn’t matter to you. Now you say it matters so much that it would be the defining issue for you in an election.

What is interesting to me is that you can’t seem to articulate an argument in favor of your position. Or is it that you can’t be bothered, because it doesn’t matter to you except that it would be the deciding factor in your vote.

BTW, you also said in another comment that abortion is a women’s health issue. Do you have any statistics on what percentage of abortions are performed because of serious risk to the mother’s health? Because my clear impression is that the serious risk is to the lifestyle of the mother, not her health.

ProfessorMiao on May 14, 2010 at 2:04 PM

AnninCA may be a threadjacker, but darned if she didn’t nail you types to the letter.
Dark-Star on May 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM

To quote AllahPundit’s post to you the other day: Your snotty derision is not appreciated.
kingsjester on May 14, 2010 at 1:00 PM

The trolls appreciate themselves infinitely more than we can possibly imagine.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that is their only real skill.

logis on May 14, 2010 at 2:04 PM

–That would cover only about 2% of them. Pro-life scientists have said pain is only felt around the twentieth week at the earliest.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM

The brain divides into 5, including the early cerebellum around Week 8.

Fetal Heart Beat can be heard with doppler at Week 9.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Pain is what makes us human?

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM

In existentialist terms, yes. I suppose maybe in the Garden of Eden we were still human and free of suffering, but ever since then mental pain and suffering have been integral to our species’ identity, not to mention the foundation of many religions.

alwaysfiredup on May 14, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Why should we consider his views?

His views “won”. Abortion on demand is legal and will stay legal.

What he and is ilk want is acceptance. They want us to say that we respect their sick position on this issue.

Well I don’t. They can force the legality by twisting the law and science into what they want it to be.

That should be enough for them, but they seem to want to force us to accept that it’s just a different point of view, perfectly reasonable, really.

It isn’t.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Jimbo’s asking for all of his requirements to be met, not just each one individually.

That said though, we haven’t been able to actually prove when pain is felt. Seems like it would be important if we’re using it to deny a being life.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I can’t stand the anti-abortionists.

I really can’t.

You’re really all about women not having sex. Admit the truth.

You’d like to kill them with rocks, too, just like the Taliban.

They should be PUNISHED.

I simply can’t abide this type. *ick*

AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Ick indeed. You are one flipped out loon. I regret that you’ve never heard of birth control, and hope you don’t have a daughter.

ProfessorMiao on May 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Why should we consider his views?

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The same reason we should consider any differing viewpoint – to better understand and explain our own.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I have to go back to work, but before I leave:

There are a lot of birth control options out there, for both women and men. It isn’t rocket science. Of course, they fail sometimes (as in my case). Still, there are other options besides abortion.

Look at the pictures of aborted babies. Read about how a baby develops, week by week.

You must have a heart of stone to look at those pictures, read about weekly development, and support abortion.

AnninCA? Where did you go?

surfhut on May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Personally, I’ve had it with these people, but I agree that it’s worthwhile because more and more people are coming around to the pro-life position.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Well, look who’s here spewing some more of his misdirection b.s. You know fully well that 99 percent of the abortions do not result from failed contraceptives but rather from NO protective devices yet you throw around that useless statistic.

docdave on May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Of the people I know that have had abortions one had it because she was 16 and didn’t thinks he was ready to be a mom (I guess she forgot about adoption), one was because she and her husband didn’t think they were ready to be parents, one was a 23 year old that lived at home and didn’t want her mom to know she had sex (and, considering she had sex in the room next to her mom’s room while her mom was home, I kinda think the cat was out of the bag) and one was a woman that was cheating on her husband that had a vasectomy and didn’t want to ‘ruin her marriage’ (which she later ruined herself when she filed for divorce after her heart surgeon boyfriend proposed to her).

Oddly enough, not one of those had anything to do with the health of the woman.

Now, I do know one woman that developed a severe case of gestational diabetes while she was pregnant. She was told to have an abortion or she’d probably die. She didn’t have an abortion and did go blind in her right eye but has a 32 year old daughter a son-in-law, grand kids and no regrets.

JadeNYU on May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

AnninCA argued just last week that anti-abortionists were evil because we were trying to control her health care by law. When it was pointed out to her that she was a supporter of Obamacare, brave AnninCA ran away. Ann can’t seem to hold a thought for very long.

Vince on May 14, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Personally, I’ve had it with these people, but I agree that it’s worthwhile because more and more people are coming around to the pro-life position.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

It’s especially important from my perspective, because I don’t exactly what abortion illegal. I want it to be completely unnecessary to make it illegal. I want women to come to realize what an incredible gift children are and not want to destroy their own anymore than they’d want to destroy themselves (some women do, and I understand that some will still choose to end their own children).

To me, Roe isn’t even the main point. It was badly decided law, but getting rid of it won’t accomplish what I want most.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

surfhut on May 14, 2010 at 2:13 PM

I really don’t know what they’re thinking.

And this is the same society that dithers and ties itself in knots with regards to the “rights” of non-citizen terrorists who have murdered dozens of innocent people.

We spend how much money to keep them comfortable, feed and shelter them, give them medical care, etc.

Whereas killing innocent children who have never harmed anyone, is something that we’re supposed to accept as a reasonable matter of course.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I agree, it’s pretty much a waste of time even making it illegal.

We can’t even enforce reasonable immigration laws – when the left discovers a law it doesn’t like, they just ignore it.

Better to work towards convincing everyone that abortion is unacceptable, our “justice” system is a hopeless waste of time.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Of the people I know that have had abortions one had it because she was 16 and didn’t thinks he was ready to be a mom (I guess she forgot about adoption),

My 19 year old chose not to have an abortion and I believe it was because I convinced her not to. She has since decided that she can’t raise her precious 2 year old and I now have guardianship. Sometimes the grownups have to step up.

I’m 59 and have employment issues but the little guy is an inspiration.

Vince on May 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I apologize for the length of this, but this has really irritated me and I wanted to point something out that hasn’t really been discussed, I don’t think.

I’m all for a women having a choice. They have plenty of choices: The pill, condoms, spermicides, IUDs, Depo Provera shots, patches, etc. That’s all SORTS of choices. Added to those options, there is the old fashioned keep yer freakin’ knees together until you’re ready to handle the consequences of your actions.

Of course, for hard core dyed in the wool pro-choice folks, the ONLY choice that matters is their choice to abort any child at any time in a pregnancy. Forget viability, forget any moral objections, THAT is the ONLY issue that matters to them.

I believe abortion is wrong. I refuse to agree that I should pay for someone else to have an abortion for any reason OTHER than rape, incest or severe birth defects (Downs syndrome is something I’ve got a problem with calling a “severe” birth defect but I can see where others would feel that way).

I hate abortion. But I am willing to concede that if you are willing to take the consequences of your decision and stand before your God and explain why you killed your unborn child, then I’m willing to allow you to make that decision because I don’t want someone else claiming they have a right to decide such a thing for me. But this is not what the pro-abortion folks believe. In fact, it is only on the abortion issue that the left believe folks should have the right to decide what should be done medically. Otherwise, they’re all for someone else telling others how to handle their health.

For me, the issue is this: There are people in this country who have come to the conclusion that everyone else should be willing to fork over any amount of money to “help” others get out of trouble, whether it’s unwanted pregnancy, bad financial decisions, etc. Yet they do not want the folks who are footing the bill for the “solutions” to complain or ask why. “My body, my decision” is a common comment by these folks. It’s strange, however, that when the Tea Party movement came out against government run health care, demanding the same right, they were accused of being nuts and unstable. Why? Because all of the sudden, to demand that government keep its nose out of a person’s health care decisions was wrong.

Instead, when it comes to health care, these folks who so vehemently want to decide on their own solution to unwanted pregnancy believe they and their leaders should have the right to tell the American people what doctors they can see, what treatments they can have and whether or not their illnesses make their bodies “viable” and “cost effective” in the long term.

That pretty much sums up the left in this country for me. They’ve always been a bundle of contradictions and double standards. While the left, I’m sure, will accuse me of being the one believing in double standards, I believe a logical look at what I said above will prove that not to be the case.

I don’t feel I should have the right to tell anyone they can’t have an abortion, except when they expect MY MONEY to pay for it. But I also do not believe anyone else should have the right to tell me what sort of health care I can have either.

How dare we think we have a right to demand folks take responsibility for their actions? We should be thrilled to have our tax money taken to murder unborn children. And how dare we believe we should have the right to make our own medical decisions?

As usual, for the left, the “My body, my decision” rule only applies in certain circumstances and to those who think like them.

Mad Mad Monica on May 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Well, look who’s here spewing some more of his misdirection b.s. You know fully well that 99 percent of the abortions do not result from failed contraceptives but rather from NO protective devices yet you throw around that useless statistic.

docdave on May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

That’s not actually true, though that is an accurate statistic for women who have abortions because of rape or incest.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

Though left unexplained is “correct use”. In order to get that 99% rate for the pill, you have to take it every day, at the same time. I doubt that all of those 13% are doing specifically that, probably feeling secure simply in taking it every day.

Same with condoms in that “correct use” isn’t necessarily “perfect” use, which is key.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM

It was badly decided law, but getting rid of it won’t accomplish what I want most.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Ditto.

Fight so that when Roe v. Wade comes up, the debate is entirely one sided in favor of overturning it.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Oddly enough, not one of those had anything to do with the health of the woman.
JadeNYU on May 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM

If you ask the question: “Should abortion be allowed in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother?” Over 80% of Americans will say yes.

If you ask the question: “Should abortion be allowed as a form of birth control?” (The only other possible reason.) Over 80% of Americans will say no.

If left to the states, nearly all would pick the obvious position — outlawing 99% of all abortions. A few might be a little to one side or the other, but NONE would take as psychotic a position as the unConstitutional Abortion Amendment enacted by the Supreme Court.

logis on May 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM

We can’t even enforce reasonable immigration laws – when the left discovers a law it doesn’t like, they just ignore it.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Good point.

Besides, I’m sick of coat hanger posters. It’s not about back alley abortions or legal ones but about changing perceptions on unborn life.

I was really hoping someone on the left side of this issue would explain to me why a baby might be punishment, because I do not whatsoever understand that one. Maybe if I did, I’d have an easier time accomplishing what I truly want.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:34 PM

That remark by Obama just revealed the paper thin depth of his character and intellect.

Children are a miracle, an incredible gift and our future.

To look at one’s own child (or grandchild) as punishment just shows what kind of man Barack Obama really is.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:41 PM

FYI–

The article in the Green Room was by the Other McCain last weekend. I corrected him when he said that 98% effective meant it failed twice in each 100 uses.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/05/09/the-pill-at-50-unhappy-un-birthday/

“Let us stipulate, arguendo, that The Pill is 98% effective. Sounds “safe,” huh? But what that means is that The Pill fails in 1 out of 50 uses. Now apply The Law of Large Numbers to that statistic: With hundreds of thousands of American women relying on The Pill to keep them “safe,” there are then many thousands of women each year who are surprised to find themselves pregnant anyway.”

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Fight so that when Roe v. Wade comes up, the debate is entirely one sided in favor of overturning it.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I’ve even told people who support abortion that it’s even in their best interest to overturn it and use something less flimsy to assert their “rights” as they consider them.

But so many people are “ends justify the means” people when it comes to their personal views.

To look at one’s own child (or grandchild) as punishment just shows what kind of man Barack Obama really is.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:41 PM

What’s worse is that so many agree with him, and that says far more about our entire culture.

I just don’t get it. The fetus is a part of the mother. That’s part of what’s being destroyed.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM

And the actual rate is 99.99%, but that again is only with “perfect” use.

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM

If left to the states, nearly all would pick the obvious position — outlawing 99% of all abortions. A few might be a little to one side or the other, but NONE would take as psychotic a position as the unConstitutional Abortion Amendment enacted by the Supreme Court.

logis on May 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM

–Why are you so sure about that?

Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 31-Aug. 4, 2008. N=808 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Which of these positions best represents your views about abortion? A woman should be able to get an abortion if she wants one in the first three months of pregnancy, no matter what the reason. Abortion should be legal ONLY in certain circumstances, such as when a woman’s health is endangered or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, even if the mother’s life is in danger.” Options rotated

Always Legal in First 3 Months–46%
Legal in Certain Circumstances—40%
Illegal in All Circumstances–10%
No Answer/Unsure–4%

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I think it’s sad how the left fools people.

I married later in life and had children later in life.

Lived in the big city, did everything the left tells us we need to do to be happy and fulfilled. Career, traveled the world, big city fun, etc.

We had a child two years ago, one on the way. Never been happier. Not even close.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

How dare we think we have a right to demand folks take responsibility for their actions? We should be thrilled to have our tax money taken to murder unborn children. And how dare we believe we should have the right to make our own medical decisions?

As usual, for the left, the “My body, my decision” rule only applies in certain circumstances and to those who think like them.

Mad Mad Monica on May 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM

–There’s a difference between the government telling you what medical procedures to do/not to do and the government telling you to carry health insurance or pay a fine.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

You are looking at those statistics wrong.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM

That should be enough for them, but they seem to want to force us to accept that it’s just a different point of view, perfectly reasonable, really.
It isn’t.
NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

You don’t go far enough. In fact, what they want is the total triumph of their point of view as the only possible view; they want dissent to seen as a sign of moral defect, of a socially dangerous and censorable abnormality. You are not merely wrong for disagreeing with them, you are sick and need to be quarantined, silenced.

rrpjr on May 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM

By the way – the societal consensus in my state is that abortion is murder. That is why there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state and it’s surrounded virtually with concertino wire.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Homicide would be more accurate. Murder is a particular form of homicide, and does not accurately describe the abortion of a pregnancy that would kill both mother an child.
Now, if you want to say that abortions performed for non-medical reasons (in other words, most of them) are murder, that’s really up to when we legally give the fetus a right to life. It seems to me that each jurisdiction should be able to set an upper bound on the time since conception.

Count to 10 on May 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Once again, thread hijacked successfully.

Never fails, does it?

Brian1972 on May 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Whatever. I have no interest in working to pass a ban because it won’t be enforced.

Just like the immigration law.

Democrats don’t like it? Presto – won’t be enforced.

The entire left and the what passes for the leftist mindset needs to be defeated and then the law will be unnecessary.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Always Legal in First 3 Months–46%
Legal in Certain Circumstances—40%
Illegal in All Circumstances–10%
No Answer/Unsure–4%

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

46 percent of the respondents were okay with it in the first 3 months but possibly not afterward.

40 percent were okay with it legal in certain circumstances (Rape, incest, health of the mother).

10 percent want it illegal in all cases.

Do the math. 46+40+10= 96 percent of American people are okay with restrictions on Abortion.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM

rrpjr on May 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM\

You are correct and history shows that is the typical left wing progression.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I watched the speech Sarah Palin gave to the Rainbow Omega organization in Birmingham, Alabama. It took place last week, I watched the video last night.

She speaks on these issues with deep emotion, conviction, and even joyful appreciation. It is quite moving at times.

This is part of why she is so hated. Effectiveness in countering the message of the political left, with very personal reality. This means a lot to her, and it shows every time. People react to her story, and some change their minds.

This cannot be tolerated.

Brian1972 on May 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I wonder how close or far apart the pro and anti groups are.

I often think that people obviously wouldn’t be for abortion if they agreed that it was a baby and not a ‘clump of cells’.

However, it would be interesting to find out how many people that are currently for abortion would continue being for abortion if both sides agreed that it was actually a baby that was being killed.

JadeNYU on May 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM

I don’t care about abortion. It is simply not important to me.

I’m not worried about her message, either. I’d hate to see her become some rabid pro-life type. They shoot people and are clearly unhinged.

I can’t see how anyone who wants government out of their “lives” honestly thinks that they can adopt a policy of interfering in people’s medical decisions and still say that with a straight face.

That’s hypocritical.

Get out of women’s medical decisions, people.

Just drop it.

AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

This is a specious argument that has been used for years to try to shut up people who defend the life of the unborn and advocate for its protection by the government.

I can say with a straight face that the government should in fact protect the life of an unborn child from its mother’s desire to end it.

The winds of change are coming. Do you think the German people in the midst of the Holocaust realized the atrocity they were supporting? Do you think now with years between those times and now those same people get it?

Jvette on May 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Get out of women’s medical decisions, people.
AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Do you think the German people in the midst of the Holocaust realized the atrocity they were supporting? Do you think now with years between those times and now those same people get it?
Jvette on May 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM

That was all between the guards and the inmates. KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S OVENS!!!

logis on May 14, 2010 at 4:06 PM

I think it’s sad how the left fools people.

I married later in life and had children later in life.

Lived in the big city, did everything the left tells us we need to do to be happy and fulfilled. Career, traveled the world, big city fun, etc.

We had a child two years ago, one on the way. Never been happier. Not even close.

NoDonkey on May 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Ditto. I was actually pro-choice until I became pregnant with my firstborn. That any woman who has carried and delivered a baby can advocate abortion stuns me. That these same women can coldly differentiate between one that is wanted and unwanted takes my breath away.

Liberal feminists are heartless and possibly soulless.

Jvette on May 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM

I don’t understand the obssession with abortion in this country. I know I am going to get beaten up for this, but before viability, why not stay out of it?

bopbottle on May 14, 2010 at 12:24 PM

It’s a matter of life and death. Does that explain it?

tom on May 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I don’t care about abortion. It is simply not important to me.

I’m not worried about her message, either. I’d hate to see her become some rabid pro-life type. They shoot people and are clearly unhinged.

I can’t see how anyone who wants government out of their “lives” honestly thinks that they can adopt a policy of interfering in people’s medical decisions and still say that with a straight face.

That’s hypocritical.

Get out of women’s medical decisions, people.

Just drop it.

AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Now this is kinda funny. Should I google AnninCA and abortion to see how many times you went on and on about the subject on HotAir.com alone?

Or should I just point out the number of posts on the subject in this thread alone, after saying you don’t care that much about it?

If it kills another human being, can it be dismissed as just “women’s medical decisions?”

Face it: any limit at all on abortion is unacceptable to you. You’re far more of a fanatic on the subject than many in the pro-life movement.

tom on May 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Liberal feminists are heartless and possibly soulless.

Jvette on May 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM

By that logic you cannot make the case that all unborn children have souls…. kind of negates any opposition to abortion on moral grounds doesn’t it?

Bradky on May 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Also – my little bulldog has brainwaves, heartbeat, and the abitlity to feel pain. And I’m willing to bet that those characteristics are more sophisticated in her than in a fetus.
HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM

So you would have no problem killing your dog if you decided you didn’t want one?

Deanna on May 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM

I wonder how close or far apart the pro and anti groups are. …it would be interesting to find out how many people that are currently for abortion would continue being for abortion if both sides agreed that it was actually a baby that was being killed.
JadeNYU on May 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM

There’s not a hair’s width of difference between what most Americans believe about anything. Even the most rabidly argued issues are nothing but a difference in point of view.

Did you see the movie Silence of the Lambs? Where the serial killer keeps saying IT puts on the lotion; IT puts the lotion in the basket…?”

That kind of thing actually happens. Serial killers are objectively monsters, of course. But NO ONE can justify in his own mind killing an innocent human being solely to satisfy his own lusts. In order to do that, you must make the victim into a thing.

Of course even the most unrepentant sociopath understands that killing a baby is the most heinous crime imaginable. But is there some magical range where liberals think “OK, at that point it’s just a little bit LESS heinous than it would have been ten minutes later?” Of course not. It’s purely bipolar; it has to be.

At some completely arbitrary point — 92 days after conception; before birth begins; before the umbillical is cut; whatever — at that point, they simply DEFINE the baby as not a baby.

That takes morality out of the picture entirely. Once you do that, it’s just like throwing a switch. There is no guilt; no dilemma at all. Nothing except the desperate need to spend the rest of your life rationalizing what you did.

logis on May 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM

By that logic you cannot make the case that all unborn children have souls…. kind of negates any opposition to abortion on moral grounds doesn’t it?

Bradky on May 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Babies are not born with an ideology.

To be soulless, since all humans are born with one, one would have to give up or sell one’s soul for something one thinks to be of greater value.

Jvette on May 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM

All that I can say is this: If I get preggo, I’ll sue the doctors, and I will have a conga line of doctors after ME due to my illnesses!

ProudPalinFan on May 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I can’t stand the anti-abortionists.

I really can’t.

You’re really all about women not having sex. Admit the truth.

You’d like to kill them with rocks, too, just like the Taliban.

They should be PUNISHED.

I simply can’t abide this type. *ick*

AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite so mind-numbingly stupid on this board before. This must have taken some serious practice.

It really sucks not to be able to killfile people on this board and it’s really tedious to have to look at who wrote the post *before* reading, but I’ll have to do that for this poster.

kim roy on May 14, 2010 at 5:02 PM

On a similar note: A lot of pastors men in uniform understand the temptation of adultery, because occasionally females members of their congregation will fall in love with them, and throw themselves at them. There’s something about father figures men in uniform that some women just can’t resist. The difference between good pastors and bad pastors troops and bad, is what they do with the temptation. Not that it exists.

RBMN on May 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

FIFY!

ProudPalinFan on May 14, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Esther had doubts, too, but trusted God and He controlled the outcome as he did for Sarah.

Kissmygrits on May 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM

I can understand how abortion would be tempting to a young girl or woman or couple who find themselves pregnant without wanting to be. I did and had an abortion, so I speak from experience.

The convenience is a mirage though and does not take into account the physical and emotional distress it causes one later. First, one must forget that what is growing in one’s womb is a human child. Second, one must be convinced that the act of an abortion is the right thing for both human persons involved.

It is self deception.

Jvette on May 14, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Have you noticed that AnninCA has suddenly vanished? Innnnteresting.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Do the math. 46+40+10= 96 percent of American people are okay with restrictions on Abortion.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Roe & Casey allow for states to protect the unborn following viability. Each state has a different set of restrictions. Pro Life efforts can push the restrictions to earlier in the term, but there will always be a point where a woman’s privacy outweighs the government’s ability to protect the recently conceived organism.

dedalus on May 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Assuming personhood doesn’t begin at conception (I think it does)it is impossible to prove when it begins. So why not take the safest position and say no to abortion?

pugwriter on May 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Have you noticed that AnninCA has suddenly vanished? Innnnteresting.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM

This is what I call GREAT news.

tessa on May 14, 2010 at 5:37 PM

So you would have no problem killing your dog if you decided you didn’t want one?

Deanna on May 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM

A lot of people do exactly that.

ProfessorMiao on May 14, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Have you noticed that AnninCA has suddenly vanished? Innnnteresting.

OhioCoastie on May 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM

She always runs away when either 1) her inconsistency is pointed out or 2)she is asked for proof of our outlandish “facts”.

ladyingray on May 14, 2010 at 5:53 PM

That takes morality out of the picture entirely. Once you do that, it’s just like throwing a switch. There is no guilt; no dilemma at all. Nothing except the desperate need to spend the rest of your life rationalizing what you did.

logis on May 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM

I think that would be the case for the majority of people that are for legalized abortion.

However, I think there are people out there (and I’m not talking about psychos but rational people) that would be able to define an ethical system and ‘morality’ that allows for killing a baby. We’ve seen it on the fringe in the U.S. where there are some people who advocate for being allowed to ‘abort’ a child up to the age of 2.

The concept has even existed in other cultures.

Vikings would leave weak infants to die of exposure. The thought being that it was immoral to waste society’s resources to raise a child that was not likely to be strong enough to make it to adulthood anyway.

There was a native tribe in South America that would allow families to have only 2 babies at a time. They were often attacked by neighboring tribes and each adult could grab only one child and escape. It was seen as immoral to have more children than you could escape with.

I wonder what ‘moralities’ people would invent to be able to still have abortion to get rid of any little problems or mistakes.

JadeNYU on May 14, 2010 at 6:06 PM

One of the big problems with legalized (and thus sociatally sanctioned) abortion is it’s effect on normal maternal ambivalence. Instead of feeling a bit unsure about the pregnancy, but coming to your senses in a few weeks or months, women are now told that abortion is the solution to their “problem.”

Even worse, the 90%+ rate of abortion for children with DS has taken that ambivalence and made it almost shameful to decide to carry a child to term that the world clearly claims is better off dead.

We must begin to once again embrace life as a culture.

Vera on May 14, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Really, there is no need to get upset about abortion because – as I’ve said … the PRO-LIFE position is the logical and intellectual position. You don’t have to involve religion to come to that conclusion. Liberal pissy pants who insist otherwise should be mocked and ridiculed for their ignorance. Here are the facts …

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM

A very good summary of an intellectual or logical approach to the subject, and the perfect place to quote Robert Heinlein, “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.”

The status quo of abortion is not the result of a logical thought process, but of rationalization. And AnninCA is a perfect example of such rationalization. [In her mind] She doesn’t have to make sense on the subject, because she’s positive anyone objecting to abortion just wants to enslave women, punish, them, stone them, and prevent them from having sex.

Even a moment’s logical thought would tell you that whether a baby in the womb is alive is an absolutely critical question to answer before making laws about whether they can be destroyed. The logic in Roe v. Wade amounted to: “We’re sure they’re alive when they’re born, and it seems hard to believe they can be considered alive when first conceived, so we’ll just divide the pregnancy into thirds, allow any abortion at all in the first third, restrict abortion in the second third, and prohibit in in the last third of the pregnancy.”

And they didn’t even stick to that. Suddenly, the last third was perfectly ok too, as long as it could be described as affecting the mother’s health in any way, even if just her state of mind.

Abortion has been one long and shameful history of rationalizing an obvious evil for the sake of social goals.

tom on May 14, 2010 at 6:55 PM

–That would cover only about 2% of them. Pro-life scientists have said pain is only felt around the twentieth week at the earliest.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM

So you’re ok with killing 30,000 human lives a year by your own definition of human life?

Or, more likely, you’re ok with all abortions that are being done, and just throw out your own definition for argument’s sake.

tom on May 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM

So you’re ok with killing 30,000 human lives a year by your own definition of human life?

tom on May 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM

A reduction in total number of abortions is a bad thing?

You’d rather we have a million a year than 30,000?

Wow.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 8:16 PM

So you’re ok with killing 30,000 human lives a year by your own definition of human life?

tom on May 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM

A reduction in total number of abortions is a bad thing?

You’d rather we have a million a year than 30,000?

Wow.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Nice try, but the part of my post you didn’t quote is quite significant. In context, now:

–That would cover only about 2% of them. Pro-life scientists have said pain is only felt around the twentieth week at the earliest.

Jimbo3 on May 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM

So you’re ok with killing 30,000 human lives a year by your own definition of human life?

Or, more likely, you’re ok with all abortions that are being done, and just throw out your own definition for argument’s sake.

tom on May 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM

2% sounds like a nice small number at first, but it’s 2% of the million and a half abortions done yearly, and it works out to 30,000 a year that are human by his own definition, but are killed under current abortion laws. Yet he’s clearly on the side of not restricting abortion.

IOW, it’s not an honest argument, because he argues it but avoids the logical corollary: that abortion laws that allow the killing of 30,000 undeniably human lives — or so he says — don’t need to be changed.

Ergo, the simple question: if you believe babies with brain waves, heart beats, and capacity to feel pain are human lives, why are you ok with allowing 30,000 of them to be killed? And I emphasize, not just allowing that many to be potentially killed, but actually killed, every year.

tom on May 14, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Women have the right to vote, people.

And they have the right to their own medical decisions.

Dark-Star on May 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Really they have the right to vote? Wow and the right to make their medical decisions. Wow you are smart but the reality is that there is another life involved. BTW your the tool punk.

CWforFreedom on May 14, 2010 at 8:48 PM

tom on May 14, 2010 at 8:32 PM

There were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005.
Source

The CDC says most of these occur within the first 12 weeks.

Placing the criteria for life at heartbeat would outlaw abortions beyond the 8th Week. Very nearly the same week for brain activity. And protect fetuses at 20 weeks or greater (right now Roe v. Wade gives viability to fetuses roughly at 25 weeks).

You are saying, that 30,000 Aborted Fetuses is the exact same as 1,000,000. You are so pro-life anyone willing to accept 2 percent of current abortions is as bad as someone for unrestricted abortion access.

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Placing the criteria for life at heartbeat would outlaw abortions beyond the 8th Week. Very nearly the same week for brain activity. And protect fetuses at 20 weeks or greater (right now Roe v. Wade gives viability to fetuses roughly at 25 weeks).

Holger on May 14, 2010 at 9:22 PM

If heartbeat became the criteria, the majority of those abortions currently performed after 8 weeks would likely be moved earlier, using non-surgical procedures. The net reduction might not be as high as your numbers.

dedalus on May 14, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Placing the criteria for life at heartbeat would outlaw abortions beyond the 8th Week

Placing the criteria for life at heartbeat would effectively outlaw all abortions, as the heart begins beating at 22 days post conception, or about 5 weeks into a pregnancy (the first two weeks of pregnancy occur before the woman is actually pregnant.)

Essentially, this would mean that a woman would be allowed an abortion for exactly one week following a positive pregnancy test.

I’m sure this would drastically cut down on abortions, but I’m equally sure that pro-choicers would not make this concession.

Vera on May 14, 2010 at 9:48 PM

By the way – the societal consensus in my state is that abortion is murder. That is why there is only one abortion clinic in the whole state and it’s surrounded virtually with concertino wire.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM

That’s absolute nonsense. The concertino wire isn’t because of any societal consensus. It’s because the “pro-life” movement gives it passive permission to its terrorist thugs, just as the muslim do for theirs.

thuja on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

The only scientifically valid criterion is conception. It is the only clear bright line. It happens in a microsecond, and clearly delineates two states of being. The instant before the sperm penetrates the ovum, you have an ovum surrounded by millions of sperm. There are a wide range of genetic possibilities, since different individual sperm cells contain different sets of genes.

But the instant one penetrates the ovum’s cell wall, a chemical change sweeps over the ovum, blocking all the others. At that moment, the fertilized egg contains the genetic information for a unique human individual. Gender. Hair, eye and skin coloration. Propensity to develop certain diseases. Male pattern baldness. (Ok, this is actually determined before conception, since the mother’s genes carry this information.)

From that moment on, the human individual grows, develops, and changes until he or she dies. The bones develop in a few weeks, grow strong in a few years, and degenerate decades later. Everything after conception is a gradual process.

skydaddy on May 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM

(the first two weeks of pregnancy occur before the woman is actually pregnant.)

This is a nonsensical statement. Pregnancy begins at conception.

skydaddy on May 14, 2010 at 10:52 PM

thuja on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Thankfully, Christian extremists are truly a minority, not needing much besides regular law enforcement and scary-looking security measures to keep in line. Because if our faith was like Islam, America wouldn’t have lasted this long!

Dark-Star on May 14, 2010 at 11:39 PM

(the first two weeks of pregnancy occur before the woman is actually pregnant.)
This is a nonsensical statement. Pregnancy begins at conception

You misunderstand. When dating a pregnancy you date from the first date of the woman’s last period, which is typically about 2 weeks before conception.

Thus, when a woman is “5 weeks” pregnant, she is really only 3 weeks post conception.

Vera on May 15, 2010 at 12:08 AM

You don’t go far enough. In fact, what they want is the total triumph of their point of view as the only possible view; they want dissent to seen as a sign of moral defect, of a socially dangerous and censorable abnormality. You are not merely wrong for disagreeing with them, you are sick and need to be quarantined, silenced.

rrpjr on May 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM

That’s absolutely true regardless the subject or issue. I’ve known enough leftists to know this is the case. If you don’t agree with them (no matter how reasonably you disagree, and possibly precisely because you are disagree reasonably), it isn’t long before they tell you in no uncertain terms how you are sick, evil, ignorant, selfish, all of the above, and more.

I wonder how they manage to live with themselves, with such bile.

Alana on May 15, 2010 at 12:32 AM

As a pro-life voter, I am NOT supporting Sarah Palin. Stop it with the warm fuzzies and look at her public record as an official. It’s not a pro-life record. Let’s hear her stand up for the Fourteenth Amendment and personhood. Then I’ll consider it. Until then, no way.

gocatholic on May 15, 2010 at 2:35 AM

….the antiabortionists have inserted themselves into much bigger issues. They push women to give up their very lives.

I’ll never back that ilk.

AnninCA on May 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Ann, what are your thoughts about my previous post:

A mother’s decision to kill her baby can have tragic consequences for her as well. Lou Ann Herron was 33 when an abortionist butchered her in 1998; Synthia Dennard died during an abortion/tubal ligation in Chicago in 1989. Please take a minute out of your busy day to Google their names and learn what happened to them during “safe, legal” abortions.
And please do a search for “Dr. Abu Hayat,” the Manhattan abortionist who made headlines in the early 1990s. He’s the guy who sliced off a baby girl’s right arm while trying to abort her. She had reached the eight-month milestone, and survived the abortion — without her right arm, of course.
The press dubbed him “The Butcher of Avenue A.”
And who could forget Dr. Scott Barrett Jr. of Missouri, who gave Stacy Ruckman, 23, fatally high doses of anesthesia after aborting her baby.
Mothers deserve better than abortion, Ann. And every child deserves a chance.
KyMouse on May 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM

KyMouse on May 15, 2010 at 7:40 AM

That’s not actually true, though that is an accurate statistic for women who have abortions because of rape or incest.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

Citing contraceptive use during the month they became pregnant is baldly disingenuous. It’s like doing a report on traffic accidents where you report whether people had worn a seatbelt that month.

A better – though still imperfect – metric would be how many of the woman had unprotected sex during the month they got pregnant. Considering “inconsistent use” translates to unprotected sex for most birth control methods, at least a majority of cases are the result of unprotected sex. (And I would conjecture the overwhelming majority.)

wdomburg on May 15, 2010 at 8:07 AM

If someone must die after a rape, should it not be the guilty party?

Slowburn on May 15, 2010 at 8:21 AM

I’m glad that she revisited this issue since she talked about this only briefly before in an (Hannity?) interview.

Though I am in no way a supporter of abortion, I do wonder about the difference between those who do decide to go through with it and those who think about it and don’t…those who don’t go through with it at least had that option to consider in the first place. There’s something a little hypocritical in that.

But I suppose it’s along the lines of those who think they may try something (like say, cocaine, whatever) but then don’t. On the other hand temptation is something that even the best among us go through-the issue is whether that temptation is allowed by that individual to be turned into action.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I agree with the contention that those most rapidly promoting abortion likely have had one and are still trying to justify the homicide within their warped conscience. That is analogous to the behavior of OJ Simpson after he got away with a double killing. At first he was flamboyant about it, then he seemed to be living it up and then, eventually, those attitudes or mental dysfunction which inspired the killing led him towards other behavioral choices which ended ultimately with his incarceration.

One of the dilemmas faced by the abortion industry is how to dehumanize the human to make its extermination more readily acceptable so that profit may be derived from procedural homicide. No matter the state of development the fertilized egg is human and cannot be anything but human. It is what it is. Being our species it can be nothing else. So the abortion industry must use deceptive words like fetus (Latin for offspring) to try to make the human sound like a symptom rather than a human. That is a common practice in holocausts… to redefine the human as something less or below the human standard (e.g. Untermensch) to make the systematization of human slaughter seem benevolent if not stylish.

viking01 on May 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM

rapidly = rabidly

viking01 on May 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

That’s absolute nonsense. The concertino wire isn’t because of any societal consensus. It’s because the “pro-life” movement gives it passive permission to its terrorist thugs, just as the muslim do for theirs.

thuja on May 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Terrorist thugs for being angry about baby killing.

If a person stuck a knife in a child’s brain, because the mother didn’t want it anymore, and the child was, say, a year old, self-righteous reprobates such as yourself might call foul.

The difference is that those, quote, unquote, “pro-lifers” understand that is exactly what abortion clinics do daily.

You think them terrorists for shooting you angry looks?

KinleyArdal on May 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM

If someone must die after a rape, should it not be the guilty party?

Slowburn on May 15, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Oh heavens no.

The guilty party gets free legal representation, a costly trial, three hots and a cot, special holiday meals, arts and crafts, cable TV, exercise, conjugal visits, early parole, a halfway house, welfare and then . . .

Then he gets to go out and rape another woman and probably murder her this time.

But we do all that because we’re a compassionate society.

Except when it comes to innocent children. They get murdered because they’re inconvenient.

NoDonkey on May 16, 2010 at 9:53 PM

If left to the states, nearly all would pick the obvious position — outlawing 99% of all abortions. A few might be a little to one side or the other, but NONE would take as psychotic a position as the unConstitutional Abortion Amendment enacted by the Supreme Court.

logis on May 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Dakota_Abortion_Ban,_Initiated_Measure_11_(2008)

I doubt it. People don’t want first trimester abortions banned even in a fairly conservative state like South Dakota.

funky chicken on May 16, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3