<p>
[quote]
She wants to teach creationism in science classes, is extremely pro-life (doesn't even support it in cases of mother's health or rape), and made women pay for their own rape kits in Alaska (upwards of $1200).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haven't heard the last statement about her before, but the first two she pretty much doesn't agree with according to her interview with Katie Couric. She said she believes there's something more than just evolution at work, but whatever more it is doesn't belong in science classes. She said she wouldn't support anyone getting an abortion, but she doesn't feel someone should be put in jail for performing or receiving an abortion.</p>
I see why Palin may disgust liberals and feminists. She has raised a family of five while rising to governor without government assistance programs. Even though she was over 40 and her child has a disability she decided not to have an abortion. Her life stands in the way of what liberals and feminists believe: that women (especially mothers) need government support and that abortion is legitimatized when the convenience of the mother is at stake.</p>
<p>The problem with that is, creationism/intelligent design is not science. I have no problem with people discussing it in history or debate or world religions class or whatever. but IT. IS. NOT. SCIENCE. full stop. It is not healthy to teach children the beliefs of a religion, which go entirely against a well documented scientific theory as a whole. </p>
<p>Also, it's quite obvious that she would not have let her daughter, who is pregnant, get an abortion if she had wanted one (and probably should have if she didn't have the resources of having a mom as potential VP, given the circumstances of it been a teen pregnancy and the sketchy ass baby-daddy). She also said during the gubernatorial race that she would oppose it even if her daughter was RAPED. Not just got knocked up, like what actually happened, but even if she was raped. That's sick. Her daughter was 14 when she said that too. </p>
<p>As for the rape kits thing, she was mayor of Wasilla for several years and while she was mayor, the city charged the victims (and victims' insurance companies) the price of the rape kits. The state legislature had to pass a law to stop them from doing it. She says that she personally didn't believe in it, but she was mayor for four years before the state legislature made the town stop. In four years, she couldn't have done something? Alaska also has some of the highest sexual assault percentages in the nation, and I don't think charging victims for rape kits is exactly the way to raise the number of reports of rape.</p>
<p>GooPV,
so you expect people to not get abortions AND to not get any governmental assistance for the many many more babies that would result in? What world do you live in, because it's not the same one I'm in right now. </p>
<p>I never said, nor would I ever say, that just because her child had down's syndrome that she SHOULD have aborted. She has plenty money to take care of him, make sure he gets proper schooling and such. But there are so many people who would not be able to afford or handle the needs of a disabled child, and the adoption system would be burdened with thousands of extra children who probably would not get adopted and would live out their life in foster care or some such. That is a terrible way to live. I know a woman who had a baby when she was in her forties and the girl has down's. She is very smart and always remembers my mother when she sees her even if it's been months and months since the last time, but her mother doesn't take very good care for her, she stills lives in the house with her mother even though she is nearly 30 and isn't able to get a job, etc. It is a poor existence for her and I would rather others not have to go through that.</p>
so you expect people to not get abortions AND to not get any governmental assistance for the many many more babies that would result in?
Exactly. As a tax payer, I don't want to pay for you decision to have a child you can't support. Don't have money to support a child? Easy solution: don't make babies. Use birth control or (gasp!) don't have sex. People need to be held responsible for their actions, this include having sex and making babies. Trying to "get out of the deal" by having an abortion is the same as solving problems in your life with murder.</p>
<p>Sh** happens. Birth control fails, condoms break. Abstinence is not a reliable birth control method. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control. It should be most definitely a last resort. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal just because people abuse it sometimes. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because there are people who drive drunk and kill someone.
Not everyone can afford birth control. Insurance doesn't cover it most of the time and it can cost more than $50. Yes, people can use condoms instead but they are less reliable than birth control pills. They are only 97% effective when used perfectly correct all the time, and when used like most people do, they are about 85% effective. Legal abortion and access to Plan B (which some people consider as abortion but actually is not) is a back-up, not to be used lightly. I imagine very few, if any, people are out there going, "Gee, let me make sure to get knocked up tomorrow night at that party so I can go abort my 3rd fetus this year." Abortion is not a pleasant procedure. It is surgery. People can die from it. No one is excited about getting one. But it should be available if it is the best option for some. </p>
<p>As the child of a single parent, I was born when my mom had a stable job and could take care of me. But what about when she had to quit her work because she had back and knee pains and couldn't do her job that required her to stand up for several hours? Should we have just roughed it instead of being allowed food stamps? I'm insulted that you would think something like that is okay.</p>
Should we have just roughed it instead of being allowed food stamps?
</p>
<p>Charities (and maybe government programs) should exist to help those who are in poverty due to unfortunate circumstances, such as deaths and serious illnesses. But to support people who don't have enough money when it was their own poor decisions that put them in that position, is wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People need to be held responsible for their actions, this include having sex and making babies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>if people aren't responsible enough to use protection what makes you think they are responsible enough to raise a child? i know of a few teenagers who have gotten knocked up, and i lament for the future of those childrens lives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trying to "get out of the deal" by having an abortion is the same as solving problems in your life with murder.
<p>
[quote]
I think alot of people who are here are people who go to good schools and whose families probably are upper-middle class. Thus McCain, who wants to cut taxes on these people, is pretty popular.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt that most of the people on this board come from families that bring in $227,000+. Some of them probably do, but you might also consider that some people don't think just because someone has more money, that money should be taken away from them and given to someone who has less money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Abstinence is not a reliable birth control method
[/quote]
</p>
<p>errr....</p>
<p>
[quote]
As the child of a single parent, I was born when my mom had a stable job and could take care of me. But what about when she had to quit her work because she had back and knee pains and couldn't do her job that required her to stand up for several hours? Should we have just roughed it instead of being allowed food stamps? I'm insulted that you would think something like that is okay.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is an issue beyond your mother's control. She had to quit her job for medical reasons. That is different than hanging out on the street making kids and waiting for your government handout.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Insurance doesn't cover it most of the time and it can cost more than $50.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you are participating in an action that has the possibility of resulting in you having a child, which costs thousands and thousands of dollars... but you do not have $50 to pay for an abortion? (by 'you', I mean, the imaginary person in question... not you, the poster)</p>
<p>Abstinence is not a reliable birth control method because People Are Rarely Abstinent. It's great to say yes, I'm going to be abstinent. But what if you slip up and have sex once? It's the same as if someone accidentally skips a pill or the condom slips/breaks/is forgotten once. It's an accident, but it happens. </p>
<p>You say charities SHOULD exist to help the poor, but they don't always. I lived in a rural area of Alabama, they don't exactly have soup kitchens and homeless shelters in towns of less than 10,000 people. We were lucky to have a goodwill and a wal-mart. Not to mention there are alot of people like you here who don't think people should get anything from anybody unless they earn it and damn those people who f*** up one day and need help. They're stealing your tax money by living on welfare! Burn em!</p>
<p>"But to support people who don't have enough money when it was their own poor decisions that put them in that position, is wrong."
This is heartless. People make mistakes. Bad things happen. It's like if a woman is abused by a husband she stayed with anyway. It was her own poor decisions that put her there, why help her out any? That's cruel, and it's the Same Thing.</p>
<p>soccerguy, that would be $50 a month (or in my case, $56 when the insurance stopped covering it), and no, not everyone has that kind of spare cash lying around every month. I had to switch to a generic brand that really did not agree with my system at all because it cost $9 instead of $56. </p>
<p>I feel like people are missing the point. Sex is natural and people aren't going to just stop having it. And in the modern world it DOESNT HAVE TO result in a child anymore. This is why we have birth control, and condoms, and Plan B and as a last resort, abortion. This is a reason that I feel very strongly that sex education should be comprehensive. It needs to explain, in detail, how condoms work (and how they can fail), how to properly use one, how to make sure birth control is taken correctly, and what Plan B is and how it should be used sparingly, and finally, what exactly abortion entails (because it is not pretty and it is not an easy out) so that people can make the right decisions for themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you are participating in an action that has the possibility of resulting in you having a child, which costs thousands and thousands of dollars... but you do not have $50 to pay for an abortion?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Birth control can cost over $50 is what she said. Abortions cost hundreds of dollars, and there is no such thing as totally 100% effective birth control... and no, I don't believe people should have to abstain from sex if they're not willing to carry a pregnancy to term. It's not good for society, and it's not good for women, who disproportionately bear the medical and social repercussions of unplanned pregnancy.</p>
<p>Pregnancy and birth can be dangerous, painful, and traumatic. And even if you don't give a crap about women, at least think about the potential unwanted kids. How is instituting policies that encourage the creation of more unwanted, uncared for children a good idea for society?</p>
<p>And as for:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Abstinence has a near perfect record, with only 1 exception (if you believe the Bible).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have you ever heard of rape? People can get pregnant from that, you know. No matter how much they believe in abstinence.</p>
<p>That's what she said in 2006; this is 2008. Don't you know that politicians waffle all the time depending on what office they're running for? And you don't have to go off on me about ID; you're talking to someone brought up with completely no religion in their life and a complete lack of belief in any higher power.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, it's quite obvious that she would not have let her daughter, who is pregnant, get an abortion if she had wanted one (and probably should have if she didn't have the resources of having a mom as potential VP, given the circumstances of it been a teen pregnancy and the sketchy ass baby-daddy). She also said during the gubernatorial race that she would oppose it even if her daughter was RAPED. Not just got knocked up, like what actually happened, but even if she was raped. That's sick. Her daughter was 14 when she said that too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't many states require a parent's signature in order to perform an abortion? Not only that, but what business of it is yours what another family does? Shouldn't your concern be how the government would interfere in a private family's life? If she doesn't want to stop you, or anyone else, from having an abortion, what's wrong with her not agreeing with them? I wouldn't ever want to marry a man, but that doesn't mean I think the government shouldn't let anyone do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In four years, she couldn't have done something?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't it generally the legislative branch of government that introduces laws and allocates funding?</p>
I feel like people are missing the point. Sex is natural and people aren't going to just stop having it. And in the modern world it DOESNT HAVE TO result in a child anymore. This is why we have birth control, and condoms, and Plan B and as a last resort, abortion.
</p>
<p>What kind of world are you living in? Having sex has consequences, just like any other action in life. You do not have the right to have sex without consequences. The government has no responsibility to ensure that you can have "safe" sex. You are trying to create a world where people can do whatever they want and the government will help them out and bail the out if something bad happens. </p>
<p>
"But to support people who don't have enough money when it was their own poor decisions that put them in that position, is wrong."
This is heartless. People make mistakes. Bad things happen. It's like if a woman is abused by a husband she stayed with anyway. It was her own poor decisions that put her there, why help her out any? That's cruel, and it's the Same Thing.
</p>
<p>I specifically meant government support. To take from money from people and give it to those who have made poor decisions is morally wrong. People should be encouraged to give to charities that support those who are in bad circumstances.</p>
<p>
How is instituting policies that encourage the creation of more unwanted, uncared for children a good idea for society?
</p>
<p>When you allow irresponsible behavior, you only create more of it. With government sponsored birth control and welfare for families you are separating adults from the results of their actions. If you allow people to have sex and create babies, but not bear the full responsibility of their actions you will only encourage more irresponsible behavior.</p>
<p>Except there's no need for sex to have "consequences". Again, do you have any idea how big of a deal pregnancy and birth are? No government has the right to make those a "punishment". A child should never be a punishment or a burden--that is not in society's best interests. Abortion rates have gone down since the advent of Roe v. Wade; there's no actual evidence for your BS "common sense" idea that letting people have sex without making babies is worse somehow societally.</p>
<p>We do not have a level playing field in this country. Your sheltered, naive self may think poverty is always a result of "poor decisions", but you clearly don't have any idea of the complexity of circumstances that keep people poor, or how much harder it is to do something like get a college degree if your parents can't help you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Birth control can cost over $50 is what she said. Abortions cost hundreds of dollars,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ah, my bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and there is no such thing as totally 100% effective birth control... and no, I don't believe people should have to abstain from sex if they're not willing to carry a pregnancy to term.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actions have consequences. What if I said "I don't believe you should have to abstain from murder if you are not willing to serve the rest of your life in prison."</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not good for society, and it's not good for women, who disproportionately bear the medical and social repercussions of unplanned pregnancy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>personal responsibility is not good for women?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pregnancy and birth can be dangerous, painful, and traumatic. And even if you don't give a crap about women, at least think about the potential unwanted kids. How is instituting policies that encourage the creation of more unwanted, uncared for children a good idea for society?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>exactly... so don't risk pregnancy if you aren't read for that.</p>
<p>I am pro choice... I just want to put that out there. But like many other things, I don't think there should be a government subsidy. It is not fair that I, as an individual, should have to pay for other people to get abortions because they made an irresponsible life decision. I would be more than happy to contribute to a fund that provides the necessary money so rape victims can be taken care of, including funding for abortions for them.</p>
<p>The difference is, rape victims are victims... normal people who have sex and then get pregnant are not victims of anything.</p>
<p>I saw this on the first page on I take offense with it:
[quote]
It is not the rich's patriotic duty to pay higher taxes
[/quote]
It certainly is, as the rich benefit from society the most. Plus it is only people making over 250k a year, the top 5%. When I am making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year I will expect to pay higher taxes, because I had a somewhat priveleged upbringing, being middle-class and a white male, and I attended the school of my choosing.</p>
<p>Furthermore, any taxation is the redistribution of the wealth. I don't advocate a "socialist state" but pure capitalism isn't the answer either. The answer is somewhere in between.</p>