Palin's Abortion Stance

[Agnapostate]

I posted this at the Debate Politics Forums, and it got moved from the Elections forum. I don't know if the same thing will happen here, but I should first plainly state that I feel it is more appropriate for this forum because it discusses a specific political figure involved in a high-profile election. Anyway, here it is:

Sarah Palin opposes abortion in essentially all circumstances. However, she is also an avid hunter. There is a logical inconsistency in this pair of positions. How is it that Palin opposes killing fetuses but supports killing nonhuman animals who have a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does?

 

[Federal Farmer]

I posted this at the Debate Politics Forums, and it got moved from the Elections forum. I don't know if the same thing will happen here, but I should first plainly state that I feel it is more appropriate for this forum because it discusses a specific political figure involved in a high-profile election. Anyway, here it is:

Sarah Palin opposes abortion in essentially all circumstances. However, she is also an avid hunter. There is a logical inconsistency in this pair of positions. How is it that Palin opposes killing fetuses but supports killing nonhuman animals who have a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does?

Nothing inconsistant about it, unless you consider a HUMAN life to be equal to that of an animal, and since she obviously doesn't, you're point is......WHAT???.

 

[Pandora]

I posted this at the Debate Politics Forums, and it got moved from the Elections forum. I don't know if the same thing will happen here, but I should first plainly state that I feel it is more appropriate for this forum because it discusses a specific political figure involved in a high-profile election. Anyway, here it is:

Sarah Palin opposes abortion in essentially all circumstances. However, she is also an avid hunter. There is a logical inconsistency in this pair of positions. How is it that Palin opposes killing fetuses but supports killing nonhuman animals who have a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does?

The baby is an innocent person, like you were once. The moose is food, very pretty to look at but none the less food. Moose are food to humans and food to wolves.

I bet if you were honest we could find something that is actually inconsistent with you. I can see you pro abortion. Killing an innocent child for any reason is ok by you but what about the death penalty? A man rapes and kills a 9 year old child, and in sentenced to the die. Are you ok with that? Or are you anti death penalty. I bet you are anti death penalty. Most people who are pro baby killing for any reason in a pregnancy are also anti death penalty for any reason in a murderer. Pattern Baby innocent, Murderer guilty

 

[Pandora]

Here is another one that baffles me but I have had this argument with more liberals than I care to count.


It is against the law to touch, YES EVEN JUST TOUCH an eagle’s egg or an owl’s egg. Even if there is no proof that egg was fertilized. I have yet to meet a lib who would say its ok for me to take that egg. I should not touch it because it could potentially become and owl or an eagle. Its just an egg right? When a bird lays an egg there is no way to look at it and know if its ever been firtlized or not. When a woman has an abortion you can be sure a child has died.



Yet we have laws on the books to protect the egg of Eagles and owls eggs. I will go to prison if I touch or take an eagle egg or owl egg.


That is backward thinking. And the only defense to this argument I got from libs so far is that humans are not valuable and owls and eagles are. A pathetic argument from my point of view but it was the only one given.


So tell us, do you think I should have the right to take eggs from eagles and owls or do you agree they are too valuable and should be protected. And since we already know your stance on abortion we can compare the two and see if its at all hypocritical.

 

[Agnapostate]

Nothing inconsistant about it, unless you consider a HUMAN life to be equal to that of an animal, and since she obviously doesn't, you're point is......WHAT???.

If they are at the same level of self-consciousness, rationality, and other traits of personhood, than yes, they are at an equal level. Species membership should not determine personhood.

 

[Agnapostate]

The baby is an innocent person, like you were once. The moose is food, very pretty to look at but none the less food. Moose are food to humans and food to wolves.

I bet if you were honest we could find something that is actually inconsistent with you. I can see you pro abortion. Killing an innocent child for any reason is ok by you but what about the death penalty? A man rapes and kills a 9 year old child, and in sentenced to the die. Are you ok with that? Or are you anti death penalty. I bet you are anti death penalty. Most people who are pro baby killing for any reason in a pregnancy are also anti death penalty for any reason in a murderer. Pattern Baby innocent, Murderer guilty

Same issue raised above about species membership. And do you automatically assume that sexual rape of a child is worse than that of an adult? I disagree that the conventional rape of a child is worse than the conventional rape of an adult. While rape is a heinous violation of one's right to self-governance and bodily sovereignty, I believe it to be a natural biological act. This does not mean that it is acceptable, of course. To assert that it is would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Because of this, women of reproductive age experience more emotional and psychological trauma after forced sexual intercourse than do children or post-menopausal women: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1992-09511-001

Children typically do not regard forced sexual intercourse as any more brutal or traumatizing than other forms of assault. Nor should they. Nor should anyone, frankly. What should make you feel worse: for someone to assault you because they feel sexually aroused by you, or for someone to assault you because they hold malevolent feelings towards you?

Hence, rape should be considered more serious based on the consequences it brings about, and it would seem more reasonable to consider an assault that caused severe emotional trauma more serious than one that did not. It would follow that rape of an adult woman is on average worse than the rape of a child or post-menopausal woman.

 

[Popeye]

I posted this at the Debate Politics Forums, and it got moved from the Elections forum. I don't know if the same thing will happen here, but I should first plainly state that I feel it is more appropriate for this forum because it discusses a specific political figure involved in a high-profile election. Anyway, here it is:

Sarah Palin opposes abortion in essentially all circumstances. However, she is also an avid hunter. There is a logical inconsistency in this pair of positions. How is it that Palin opposes killing fetuses but supports killing nonhuman animals who have a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does?

Sarah Palin not only condones the trophy killing of animals but cares more about a bunch of nonviable cells that a victim of rape or incest.

I've found one of the things most repugnant about the majority of Republicans is their lack of regard for life other than white Americans....in their hypocritical world slaughtering animals or opposing their protection is ok as is killing innocent civilians in a war, just as long as they're not American.

Look out though if if a fetus gets aborted or an American gets killed (as long as he's not on death row)...then they turn it into a political thing and snivel endlessly. Being Republican is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Libsmasher]

Sarah Palin not only condones the trophy killing of animals but cares more about a bunch of nonviable cells that a victim of rape or incest.

Instead of blabbering feminist idiocies for morons like "bunch of nonviable cells", are you capable of any REAL debate on the issue?

I've found one of the things most repugnant about the majority of Republicans is their lack of regard for life other than white Americans....in their hypocritical world slaughtering animals or opposing their protection is ok as is killing innocent civilians in a war, just as long as they're not American.

THAT is about as disgustingly hypocritical, and as brazen a lie as it gets - minorities are far more likely to get abortions.

Look out though if if a fetus gets aborted or an American gets killed (as long as he's not on death row)...then they turn it into a political thing and snivel endlessly. Being Republican is the very definition of hypocrisy.

People (not you) have offered intelligent arguments on both sides of the capital punishment issue. Having said that, is there any expectation that you could see the moral difference in killing someone guilty of aggravated murder, and a fetus in the womb?? Nooooooo......... your brain functions at a primitive level of leftwing idological relflex and defamation, logical argument is beyond you.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I wonder if Libsmasher is prepared to be executed for a crime he didn't commit.

Well Libsmasher, are you?

 

[Libsmasher]

I wonder if Libsmasher is prepared to be executed for a crime he didn't commit.

Well Libsmasher, are you?

Oooooooooooo - garsh! An actual ARGUMENT from Dawkinssucks!!!

I have already said on this forum that mistaken conviction and execution is one of the only two credible arguments against capital punishment.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Anyway, answer the question.

Or is that you aren't prepared to be executed for a crime you didn't commit but it's ok if others get this treatment.?

That would kind of fit with your hypocrisy on everything else

 

[Popeye]

Instead of blabbering feminist idiocies for morons like "bunch of nonviable cells", are you capable of any REAL debate on the issue?

There is no debate, it's a fact...Palin would refuse an abortion to a woman made pregnant by rape or incest. In other words, caring more for nonviable cells that actual victims. That's sick and unfeeling.

Meanwhile she advocates the wanton slaughtering of animals for sport and cheers on the killing of innocent victims in war...must be a "task from God" don't you know.

 

[Libsmasher]

There is no debate, it's a fact...Palin would refuse an abortion to a woman made pregnant by rape or incest. In other words, caring more for nonviable cells that actual victims. That's sick and unfeeling.

Yet ANOTHER howler from you - as if pro-abortionists were warm, sympathetic humanists.

By debate, I mean real discourse about the onset of human life, in lieu of your unschooled feminist prattle about "cells".

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Heh come on a minute.

If Palin allowed abortion of the product of incest she would have no supporters

 

[Popeye]

Yet ANOTHER howler from you - as if pro-abortionists were warm, sympathetic humanists.

By debate, I mean real discourse about the onset of human life, in lieu of your unschooled feminist prattle about "cells".

Even among those who oppose abortion, many believe in an exception for the health of the mother...mentally as well as physically. Would you expect a victim of rape or incest to play incubator for 9 months ? Or are you just supporting Caribou Barbie's postion?