She came in second in the Miss Alaska Beauty pageant. That's almost worse than finishing second in a Miss Massachusetts pageant.

Woody wrote:SHE KNEW HER BABY HAD DOWNS SYNDROME AND SHE KEPT IT!!!

Yeah, this keeps popping up in articles (through no fault of Palin's)and it's driving me nuts-this insistence that she is SO opposed to abortion that she actually decided to keep a child with Downs syndrome. Because, you know, all supporters of reproductive rights would get rid of a child with Downs syndrome in a split second since they're such a burden that anyone whose scruples would allow it would clearly make that decision. By making remarkable what is most likely the usual response from expectant parents in a situation such as hers , it manages to insult both these parents and sufferers from this condition.

What swish said

Smart guy on another board said

She beat a long time incumbent ® governor in the state's primary.

She has tossed out pork by a long time incumbent ® Senator.

This woman is a successful business person... this woman is a successful wife... this woman is a successful mother... this woman is fiscally and socially conservative... this woman understands labor unions and she and her husband are part of one...this is a military mom, this is a "hockey" mom, this is a gun toting outdoors mom, this woman is as close as we're going to get to being an energy expert... oh yeah, and she has that beauty pagent thing.

So... she hasn't been a career politician... but she's been successful in her political ventures, thus far.

There is not another candidate that could have done for McCain what this one could do... you know damn well that the attack ads were already in production for any of the other suits. They won't have much on this one, and what they find will likely disappoint them.

So, they will do what they are doing... experience... small town... small state... never mind that this woman is the governor of perhaps the most important state to our union in the upcoming 20 years...

I love the pick. To pick a woman that is so mainstream, yet is so far out of the mainstream when it comes to the political predictions... it changes the electoral map for McCain... he needed this. Republicans needed this... and IMO, the country needs this.

If she had a penis, that smart guy would have been virtually jerked her off with that post

Woody wrote:If she had a penis, that smart guy would have been virtually jerked her off with that post

Ah, for want of a weiner.....

swishnicholson wrote:

Woody wrote:SHE KNEW HER BABY HAD DOWNS SYNDROME AND SHE KEPT IT!!!

Yeah, this keeps popping up in articles (through no fault of Palin's)and it's driving me nuts-this insistence that she is SO opposed to abortion that she actually decided to keep a child with Downs syndrome. Because, you know, all supporters of reproductive rights would get rid of a child with Downs syndrome in a split second since they're such a burden that anyone whose scruples would allow it would clearly make that decision. By making remarkable what is most likely the usual response from expectant parents in a situation such as hers , it manages to insult both these parents and sufferers from this condition.

The percentage of abortion for fetuses diagnosed with DS is estimated at 91-93%. Gov. Palin's baby had a pre-diagnosis, so her decision to have her baby puts her in a distinct minority. This is a pretty big deal to many, particularly those who are in the pro-life camp, for obvious reasons.

I understand that this issue will be relatively meaningless to some, but that doesn't mean it's a story that should be hidden or even minimized.

Here's more on prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and ethical issues from Wikipedia:

Ethical issues
Due to the low incidence of Down syndrome, a vast majority of early screen positives are false.[22] Since false positives typically prompt an amniocentesis to confirm the result, and the amniocentesis carries a small risk of inducing miscarriage, there is a slight risk of miscarrying a healthy fetus. (The added miscarriage risk from an amniocentesis is traditionally quoted as 0.5%, but recent studies suggest that it may be considerably smaller (0.06%), not statistically different from zero.[23])

A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[24] Physicians and ethicists are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this.[25] Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion".[26] British peer Brian Rix stated that "alas, the birth of a child with Down's syndrome is still considered by many to be an utter tragedy" and that the "ghost of the biologist Sir Francis Galton, who founded the eugenics movement in 1885, still stalks the corridors of many a teaching hospital".[27] Doctor David Mortimer has argued in Ethics & Medicine that "Down's syndrome infants have long been disparaged by some doctors and government bean counters."[28] Some members of the disability rights movement "believe that public support for prenatal diagnosis and abortion based on disability contravenes the movement's basic philosophy and goals."[29]

A 1998 study of Finnish doctors found that "Only very few, pediatricians somewhat more often, thought that Down's syndrome is not a good enough reason for pregnancy termination, but more (15-21%) thought that current prenatal screenings in general are (partly) based on eugenic thinking."[30]

I don't have any interest in your style of "debate", Mountainphan, so I'll take one stab at explaining my post and then you can go off and do your own thing.

I know a number of parents with children affected by Downs syndrome. I don't know of one who regrets the decision to bear such a child. While the challenges are many, both these and the rewards are more like those faced by parents anywhere than they are different, although liable to be greater in degree, on both sides of the equation.

The decision whether or not to bear a child with Downs syndrome is a difficult one, with the prospective parents having to weigh what what they think will be best for themselves and for the child despite begin faced with a great deal of uncertainty toward both their own capabilities and the child's.

To characterize this decision as emblematic of one's attitude toward abortion is an insult to both the parents and the child. It implies that one's decision is constrained by one's moral or religious strictures, rather than being an active decision to bring a child into the family and to love it. It implies that the child is such a burden that were it not for these constraints one would almost certainly terminate the pregnancy. I do not believe that Sarah Palin gave birth to her child because her opposition to abortion forced her to, but because she wanted this child, and I believe all parents and children, whether afflicted or not, deserve to be regarded this way.

When she is held up as some sort of paragon of a higher level of commitment to the pro-life cause due to her decision to bear her child, I believe it does a disservice to her and to disabled children everywhere, and can lead to exactly the sort of attitudes that you find so disturbing in your post above.

Life is better with mountainphan on ignore, swish

Being a Republican politician, she really couldn't get rid of the kid, could she?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Being a Republican politician, she really couldn't get rid of the kid, could she?

Would anyone have found out about it?

shrug

They find out about everything, don't they?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:shrug

They find out about everything, don't they?

I think medical stuff is different though. Remember, on the West Wing, the Pres was able to keep MS a secret.

swishnicholson wrote:I do not believe that Sarah Palin gave birth to her child because her opposition to abortion forced her to, but because she wanted this child, and I believe all parents and children, whether afflicted or not, deserve to be regarded this way.

I happen to agree 100% with this. My previous post was not to engage in debate, rather to provide additional perspective as to why this issue is important to some. I also believe most pro-lifers would agree with your statement above, fwiw.

swishnicholson wrote:

Woody wrote:SHE KNEW HER BABY HAD DOWNS SYNDROME AND SHE KEPT IT!!!

Yeah, this keeps popping up in articles (through no fault of Palin's)and it's driving me nuts-this insistence that she is SO opposed to abortion that she actually decided to keep a child with Downs syndrome. Because, you know, all supporters of reproductive rights would get rid of a child with Downs syndrome in a split second since they're such a burden that anyone whose scruples would allow it would clearly make that decision. By making remarkable what is most likely the usual response from expectant parents in a situation such as hers , it manages to insult both these parents and sufferers from this condition.

As one of the handful of women on the board, I'll just comment on a couple things...

If around 12/13th week of being pregnant, you get a blood test to look for markers of known birth defects -- Downs, Trisomy defects, etc. Why this time of pregnancy? Because you can legally abort without difficulty if the results show a defect/potential for defect. I also know that doctors will encourage woman to abort if they get "positive" results.

dajafi wrote:Here's another criticism of the Palin pick. I don't know anything about this writer, so it doesn't register the same way that, say, Frum's does, but interesting anyway. There already seems to be a bit of this response among the public.

That said, "worst pick ever" strikes me as way too harsh. You simply can't top Quayle, an honest-to-goodness moron, or Ferraro, who was even more of a blatantly political pick than this one.

Sarah Palin will wow cultural conservatives in areas where they may not have come out to vote before the selection. This is right out of Karl Rove's strategy of getting more of your own to show up and vote.

However, in many of the swing states that Bush carried in 2004, there were anti gay ballot measures to motivate the cultural conservatives to vote. There are very few of these measures on the ballots in those key states in 2008. Palin may not be enough for them to get out and vote. Clearly Rove felt in 2004 that Bush would not have been enough, thus the ballot measures.

In fact, as Palin's cultural views become better known -- she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples -- she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters. In fact, many of these women may feel insulted by this choice in that McCain and the GOP think they are stupid and would bypass their own interest (reproductive and economic) to vote for the ticket due to gender and anger that Hillary was not the nominee.

The part I bolded is pretty hard to believe. Does she think we non-breeding marrieds should use the "rhythm method," totally forego sex, do what the teenagers do, or get divorced?

There are people who believe that life begins at conception, and that birth control pills and IUDs are abortificants, much like the morning-after pill.

If they're preventing the conception, then the life hasn't begun

exactly.

The Dude wrote:If they're preventing the conception, then the life hasn't begun

Technically, there is conception, the joining of the egg and sperm, and then the zygote (i believe that's what it is called), attaches itself to the uterine wall. BCPs and IUDs create a hostile environment where the attachment to the uterine wall fails.

Barrier methods such as condoms prevent conception.