Sarah Palin: I Oppose Abortion in All Cases, Including Rape and Incest

I too agree since she seems to be a "forward thinker" and once faced with the perspectives of different voter groups - she may indeed modify her stance.  I also think that as she lives through this personal family experience - it mat change her perspective - if not her personal view.

Let's see!

You are a walking contradiction. As a "democrat" voting for the republican McCain you are essentially extending the same administration that has been running this country (into the ground) for the past 8 years. Your comment about Alaska being "different" could also apply to Texas. Look at where that got us. I'm guessing you are one of the few people left in the country who think Bush has been doing a good job. I assume you voted for him the last two times if you're planning to vote for McCain next. Not much of a democrat, are you?

John - people vote for the country's well being and improvement - they also vote according to their conscience, their religious and moral stances and they vote for the person whose policies match theirs most closely.  I long ago abandoned voting as a democrat or republican - I look at the candidates each time and make an asessment.  Aside from the choice issue - I can't vote for a president whose experience, in my personal evaluation, is insufficient, and I can't vote for someone, whose stance on choice is in direct contrast to mine - so I , as others, have less than 2 months to '"work it out" between these 2 very contrasting choices of Pres/VP.

But the "choice issue" for me, is irrevocable, personally, as are her other strict creationism/sex education perspectives.  I don't presume to tell the next person how to vote - I merely make my own decision.

I admit conflict because her persona and the strength she projects, even as recently as last night is incredibly inspirational but I struggle with her strong though defined stance on these issues that pertain to sex education, choice, creationism.  I believe those features do factor into the overall decision - whether or not she will actually be able to implement her positions as policy. 

Where in God's name are you coming up with these completely made up facts about Obama and abortion? Obama supports a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy during the FIRST TRIMESTER and that's IT! At that point, the 'baby' hasn't even grown into a baby at all. It is a cluster of cells - NO heart beat - the size of pea. It's not even a baby yet. Please understand - NO ONE is in favor of killing babies - that's just propaganda from the right to get people like us all worked up into a frezy because they manipulated us into thinking people are actually killing babies. Its exceedingly rare for aborions to be performed during even the earliest weeks of the second trimester - which Obama is opposed to btw. In fact, it's illegal to perform an abortion on ANY woman in her 3rd trimester. The only caveat being if continuing the pregnancy is, for whatever reason, going to kill the mother. In those rare cases, doctors will do what they must to save the life of the mother as well as the baby.

I have not responded to those comments about Obama's particular stance - but as far as I know, you are correct in your outline of his position on abortion.  I too agree that most doctors and the general public view a termination of pregnancy as something that should be decided quickly and be taken care of as soon as possible.  Abortions are done after ultrasound tests in week 12 and after certain somewhat later tests may show that the fetus has serious health issues - that is a reality.  Again, that's when it becomes personal choice and I do believe that most parents agonize over those decisions - they are made with great pain and heartache.

Though rare, I also know that late term abortions have been done in the past for the wrong reasons.  I am not by any means comfortable with that - and as I have discussed earlier - that's where I draw the line in the sand.  Again, society needs to address that one. 

I am much more informed about this than you are.  I am amazed that so many are blindly following a man who gets people to believe that he is for whatever they believe he is. 

He has refused to vote for legislation in Illinois that would save babies who were aborted and lived.  Then he was "confused" about the truth of it later.  When my kids are confused about the truth, it means they lied.  JMO, not the stuff of a great man.

New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/us/politics/20checkpoint.html?ref=washington

And here is his stance on late-term or partial birth abortions:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77500/barack_hussein_obama_jr_defends_partialbirth.html

Perhaps a bit more radical than you thought?

I hope you take the time to research exactly where Obama does stand.

Kate

Kate =the sites you reference with the quotes are not "News standard sites" so i would not, as a reporter, use those sites as a reference or authentication point.  I also reviewed the statements there and they don't indicate the "strong points" you make.  as i pointed out - I as many voters - am often forced, if I want to vote for the "lesser evil" and choice  - even with allowances for certain situations I am not in favor of, versus "no choice," has to be my choice.

There are times when partial birth abortions are medically necessary - whether to save the life of the mother or because a family chooses to not continue with a pregnancy that would result in a very challenging medical situation for their new child.  I recognize that there are cases when this procedure is used - for what i would consider to be the wrong reasons or irreverantly.  If you take choice off the books - you take it off the books completely and I for one am not comfortable with that situation.

The truth of it is that as soon as the egg is changed by the sperm a whole new being is

formed that is neither the mother nor the father.  Furthermore the mother is entrusted

with the nurturing of the child from that moment to adulthood.  Now the truth may be

inconvenient for some but does not change the reality.

Jeff - whether or not we agree on when life starts or how life is perceived - scientifically or otherwise - there are many issues that confound that simple explanation.

Women who are faced with an undersired, unplanned or forced upon them pregnancy  - many of us believe - have the ultimate decision.  It's obvious that many of us feel uncomfortable or downright distressed when abortions are performed in certain situations - but if it is a "black and white issue" - I currently have to side with "choice."  For the mother.

I think alot of people differ on the "abortion specifics" - i know that personally if a woman who has been raped or the victim of incest is found to be pregnant - and - they bring this matter up quickly in the first 1-2 months - then it is their right.  I also beleive that women need to get abortions early, very early if this is simply an 'accident or unwanted pregnancy." I certainly do not view abortions as " a simple means for birth control."  Finally - I am of the belief that if an ultrasound or other test reveals "deformities - physical issues"  -then this is a "private decision."

I have never favored a cavalier attitude to pregnancy or late term abortions because the child is simply unwanted and the birth mother did not act quickly.

I appreciate you're taking the time to weigh in with your perspective because we do need dialogue on this tough subject.  I would answer you by saying that as a PA in my training I helped to deliver the babies of many teens who "were not allowed a choice" and were very unhappy to have been "forced to have a child."  I would also offer to you that over the years of raising 2 teens - the conversation about "abortion" "choice" "contraception" came up hundreds of times and i can tell you that these teens "emphatically wanted the choice - the opportunity to decide yes or no."  They were very open to hearing and being exposed to the "pro-life position" - they simply wanted to "have a decision." 

I love living in this country because i have traveled to countries where choice doesn not exist.  I can appreciate that because you have a pro-life perspective - you don't want choice on this issue.  I'm going to assume that there is some other issue in your life - where you are given the freedom of choice - maybe religion - where it would be inconceivable to have that taken away.  That reality exists in other countries.  As you might feel about religion - or another "choice issue" - so do others feel about the choice to be able or not able to terminate a pregnancy - especially if it is the product of an accident where birth control was intentionally used and failed, or the product of incest or rape. 

Amy,

I support your stance, and feel that Sarah Palin leaves the same questions in my mind.  After reading your last response I see why I'm in agreement.  I work with teen mothers, 60 in fact, at a alternative middle school that allows them to bring their babies to the daycare provided by the school.  The reason the number is 60 is that is the max.  

When Virginia decided to teach abstinence only, the birth rate for teens doubled in this area.  The waiting list when I started volunteering at the school was 20, now it is closer to 70.  The circle of love and support around these young mothers is simply a miracle!  Teachers and friends, like myself, have banded together to offer these kids and their children a chance, but the sad truth is, it is not working!

It's so easy to say "every baby should have a chance", but who is going to show up after the fact? From where I sit not many, and may I add there is not a pro-life person who has volunteered to work with them in the 5 years I've been there. The Catholic church next door to the school has a sign "Pregnant? We're here to help", but they counsel the kids not to have an abortion and send them over to the public alternative school to sign up for babysitting and continue to finish their education to support their child!

Having had a mother who worked as a social worker for 50 years on behalf of children, I had the exposure to what it can look like for them. Some kids stayed with us until she could get them into homes suitable to take them on.  Most kids were victims of circumstance.  Some cases will be amazingly successful, but it's intense, hard work and many people are not up to the task. 

There are a few great places that offer teens a chance and real community to survive. But these places are few and far between and FULL.  I have one teen mother with two children and she is 14.  Her first was born right before she turned 12. She lives with a grandmother only because her grandmother didn't want her in the shelter with the baby. These are middle class kids across the board!

To be pro choice is to be pro abortion, it's not my decision to make for anyone else. And I wholeheartedly belief that great sex ed programs deter stupid sexual encounters and mishaps, like that of Palin's daughter! The proof is in front of me every week! With the current abstinence only legislation in VA, teachers have an added problem of a gag order.  They can not discuss birth control, or relationship problems even in cases of abuse. 

Furthermore, these comments left today only show that this is a moral issue and will be voted on politically by which side you stand.  I do not vote by party alone, I stand squarely in the middle, most of the time I am a one issue voter anymore!  Too much stupid has left me to say, no one switches on this topic for sake of appealing to a majority of Americans.

For sensible republicans: a great site I love: gopchoice.org 

Thanks for taking on a hot topic!

Respectfully,

a pro-choice pro-education advocate!

I, too, appreciate the dialogue and your perspective - it is truly what makes this a great country as you mentioned with all the rights and choices we have available to us.  I am not a Republican or Democrat; I am a registered Independent voter.  I am not locked into either side.  I have no letters after my name.  I am a 46 year old woman, was widowed when my sons were 6 and 10, they're now 19 and 23, so I know what it's like to raise kids alone.  I am a Christian and I can't stress enough that I would never, ever judge these girls - that's not what any of us are put here for, but I do think it's our responsibility to help them.  We just don't agree on how that help should be given and I don't claim to have the answers.  I don't claim to see this as just a right or wrong choice - - if it were as easy as that, it would be a non-issue today. 

Unfortunately, people on the far side of each viewpoint have done more damage to their own cause than good.  The pendulum has swung extremely far on the non-abortion side and now it seems that it has swung extremely far on the abortion side.  We can only hope that it will settle somewhere reasonable soon.

Yes, I am extremely appreciative to have all the rights that this country gives us - but is this a right we should have?  Shouldn't the baby's rights be seriously considered by ALL involved?  When we look back at how our mentally challenged, mentally ill, deaf population has been barbarically treated in the past (and in some cases, still today) and not valued as human beings, I wonder if one day, we will look back at abortion in the same repulsed, embarrassed way.  When you know better, you do better and I'm concerned when someone in your position referring to abortion, the ending of a life, as "terminating a pregnancy" or "the product of incest."  I worry that these terms and many others are meant to sanitize this as was done with the population mentioned above.  These young girls (sometimes women) in their moment of greatest despair will grasp at your words and have to live with that decision.  Yes, it may be a much quicker, much cheaper short-term answer, but compared to 9 months, a lifetime is a very, very long time.  And how many of these girls get pregnant again because of the guilt, loss, regret they feel after the ‘procedure'?

You mentioned abortions should be done early, so I'll assume that there is some point where you go from comfortable with this procedure to uncomfortable.  Think about it - sit quietly and just think about that line you've drawn for yourself between comfortable to uncomfortable, is it a month or two, a day or two?  That line may have been in a different place for you years ago and may in a different place years from now, but for these girls, it's their lifetime. 

The stories of young pregnant mothers even before their teens are horrible - bless anyone who is helping them,  but to think we can change the increasing numbers with a sex ed classes, condoms, birth control pills and abortions is really naive - wishful thinking - and it can't be done by churches or other groups offering support to pregnant teens or young mothers.  It is going to take many things to change it around (especially parents and the parent/child bond in many cases that is not there).  I just don't want the young mothers to pay later when they realize the consequences of their choices.   

Beautifully said and yes - I do have my own "line in the sand" as both a religious person myself, health professional and mother of a daughter who has not had to grapple with this, but with whom I've had many discussions. 

I will always feel that "choice' and allowing one the freedom to choose what is right for them, personally (including how they intepret what pregnancy and its stages means to them), is the way to go on this issue HOWEVER I have always been open to listening to and respecting other perspectives.  I also agree with you that there are many on both sides who have gone "too extreme."

Just to comment on this paragraph:

"The stories of young pregnant mothers even before their teens are horrible - bless anyone who is helping them,  but to think we can change the increasing numbers with a sex ed classes, condoms, birth control pills and abortions is really naive - wishful thinking - and it can't be done by churches or other groups offering support to pregnant teens or young mothers.  It is going to take many things to change it around (especially parents and the parent/child bond in many cases that is not there). " 

Absolutely education makes a difference.  Virginia saw a small decrease at first, but since has had small increases in the number of teen pregnancies.  So for Virginia the abstinence program does not tip the scale much for the entire state, but it does not advocate for kids in need of help making the decision. In contrast, DC refused to take on abstinence only, and instead chose to address sex ed with a very aggressive program and their teen pregnancy rate dropped 33%, after years of suffering with the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.  Maryland refused the program and has a much lower rate of pregnancy. 17 states have refused the program and given up much needed federal dollars to continue with programs state officials feel advocate for their teens better.

But I also agree that it takes a healthy parent-teen relationship to really drive home the message. One thing is very clear with the teens I work with, they do not have the relationship with their parents to emotionally get what they need.  For many of them, it is the attention they receive from their boyfriends and loss of communication with their parents that gets them in trouble!

Great response and how wonderful that you have been involved.

Then you need to read some "objective sites" that have reviewed her "positions" not - her personal choice - which I applaud - because we all should have 'personal choice.'  if you simply google her name - you can choose from any of the news and political outlets who have reviewed her position which is "creationism" be the only theory taught in schools, ONLY abstinence be taught in sex education, etc.  As a blogger, am merely stating factual information that is out there for any one to read.

First, do you personally know Palin?  If you  dont then listen ,Palin has a black and white stance on all issues. She may be no 2 in the whitehouse!! Of course she is going to push her opinions on us. She has done it in Alaska.  She fired people when she did not get her way.  Tryed to get rid of a librarian for not wanting to ban certain books in a library in Alaska with words she did not approve of.  That is against freedom of speech!  She also supports a party which does not believe in equal pay for equal work or experience.  There is so much not to love about this women it makes me sick!!

  For anyone who wants more info on this women go to Ben Smiths Blog: The Anti Palin e-mail-Politico.com   The inquirer also has a story on her.  According to a very trusted person  I knew, the Inquirer  prints the facts.

I did offer to the originator of this particular comment that Palin's position is quite black and white and her exact stance and statements can be seen on a number of reputable Associated Press and political blogs/websites.  She has a number of stances I don't agree with that involve sexual education, creationism as well as abortion - and as I further pointed out - President's and VPs who have the potential to become presidents - can vote in Justices who can indeed change current laws.

Thanks for weighing in.

I have to agree and let's remember that though the discussion in the political arena seems to revolve around a 17 year old and her situation and choice (again, unfortunately since i believe this was a "right to privacy") these issues pertain to teens/young adults - anyone of child bearing years.

My grandmother was able to tell me stories about "secret abortions" and cases of women who died, were left never able to have children, and other tragedies back in her young days.  I cannot imagine us going back to a health situation like that, ever.

Appreciate your insights and the comments that - discussion and education means - all viewpoints get shared.  This is a very personal decision and I can appreciate that many of us will never see "eye to eye," which is why I am so in favor of choice.

Our grandmothers really can tell the story like it was back then - which I know, for many would be shocking. 

Thanks for weighing in,

Thanks for speaking up - especially as a grandfather of a teenager.  My Dad actually echoed your words.

Thank you Amy... I fear for this country and our children with those two in office.

I cannot tell you how many people sent e-mails to me with this similar stance - again, I reiterate what it was like BEFORE Roe v Wade was passed - it was the ultimate horror for women who had no choice to make so again, I support personal health positions and personal health decisions for all.

And that is my position as well!!  Additionally as a health professional - I encounter people daily who may not see "eye to eye" with me on treatment and I do have to respect their position after rendering education/information so choice to me is imperative.

In response to the government telling us what to do, I am not in favor of the government telling me what to do and I definitely don't want the government intruding even further into my personal life.  If I want to smoke I will.  If I don't want to eat fattening food I won't.  That's my decision.  It's not up to the government to analyze my sexual relationships and legislate how I may deal with them.  That's my decision.  I personally do not want children and I won't have the first one.  Period.  I don't give a damn what these nutcases want.  I also am not interested in marriage.  My relationship with my guy is fine the way it is.  As far as Palin's daughter is concerned, I find it humorous that Governor Palin is concerned with my womb and my morals when she doesn't even know me but apparently doesn't have time to pay attention to her own daughter.  Just another case of someone minding everyone else's business except her own.  That's standard in this country.  I also seem to remember this same fate befalling Britney Spears' sister and people definitely were not applauding her decision to have her kid and marry the biological father which was the same decision Palin made for her daughter.  I seem to remember people acting like Spears' sister was the first teen in America to get preggers out of wedlock and I seem to remember folks saying very nasty things about her and her mother.  Now we have some politician's daughter in the same exact situation and people do an about face and gush over it.  And I know damn well it's the same crowd.  What exactly makes Palin's daughter more special than Spears's sister?  Give me a break.  As far as being opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest, I was raped at the age of 18 and while that situation was bad enough, I could only imagine at how even worse it would have been had I found myself pregnant.  Of course I would have obtained an abortion because not only would I not want a nine month reminder of my rape but why should just any guy hit me over the head and father a child with me?  Or decide I need to be pregnant with a child against my own will?  I didn't even know this asshole but according to this Palin woman he's good enough to father a child with me?  Get real.  No thank you.  Hell, I couldn't have even gone after the asshole for child support because I never met the man before.  I can just imagine how traumatizing it would be for a girl to be victimized by an incestuous relationship with a male relative and then compound that with a pregnancy.  Most girls who are victimized like that are under 18 years of age.  Apparently this Palin woman has never been in either situation so why does she think she has the right to speak for those of us who have?  Or to tell us that we should be thrilled to endure a pregnancy from such encounters?  Men who engage in such activities have no right to ever father children because they are sexual perverts with mental issues.  Why would you honor some pervert with fatherhood?  Why would you even want to burden someone down with being the product of incest?  Can you imagine the psychological repercussions of finding out your grandfather is really your father who felt like screwing his daughter?  Not to mention that there is a reason why blood relatives should not have children together and it's not because society wants to be meanies.  It can result in mental retardation, severe deformities, health issues, and even mental disorders.  Hell, centuries ago these so-called royal families would intermarry with their own relatives because they felt their "royal blood" couldn't be diluted with non-royal people's blood and they ultimately wound up with progeny who were stark raving insane.  By denying women access to birth control or abortion, that makes them targets for rapists and incestuous perverts.  Let's not forget that these anti-abortion people are trying to outlaw contraception as well as abortion because they want to control us.  And this woman represents the political party that wants to do that.  They may never succeed with outlawing either one but they damn sure will make it practically inaccessible for most women.  Because after all, it's low income and middle income women they want to saddle down with numerous children.  This is a war and it's being waged against women.

As the saying goes, if you don't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?

With millions of orphaned, unwanted and uncared for children in the world, how does Sarah Palin justify forcing women to bring more unwanted kids into the world? Not everyone is married to a rich oil man who can afford to stay with her children while she works. Plus, once these babies are born, the Right's whole "sanctity of life" arguement goes out the window as the Republicans cut funding from the social welfare programs that provide for these kids. If the Right spent their energy providing for and educating the kids who are already here, we'd dramatically decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies and thus the total number of abortions.

Ms. Hendel, thank you kindly for writing this important and timely article.

Great , great points and some of the additional "things" I myself often mull.  We have too many children of all ages not adopted and left in a child care system that quite often fails them.  the current budgets allocated to those areas you mention are quite appalling as well.  I appreciate your insights.

I too have been a Republican to date and I confess that I too will probably not vote for Mccain/Palin because of several issues -her stance on abortion a primary issue.  I do appreciate the many people who have written in - including yourself - who clarify their religious beliefs and political stance.

Martha - I had no idea that when I posted this blog it would electrify the discussion forum.  I am inspired by the different views of so many women - but I am especially inspired when women such as yourself can share true "realities" with others whose imagination cannot possibly capture the true,harsh historical/medical realities that existed in the past and would come back again 100-fold in these modern times.

I have to fervently believe that education and choice are imperative; that teens will make mistakes/poor decisions and need an opportunity to be allowed to then have the best options offered - be they a choice to allow the pregnancy to continue or to terminate it early.  I have to believe that women need and want the right to "decide," given their personal circumstance.

Your comments really struck a chord with me as well.

Thank you for that - as a health reporter with a background in medicine - but also a mom - working woman - wife - I do try to be objective with most health issues but also to offer a personal perspective when it's reasonable.  This is one of those health-moral/religious issues where I do have a personal perspective, which is why I felt it important to put it out on a blog.

Thanks for weighing in.

Katei - you are misssing the point that women who are not teens and who are in wonderful marriages want the right to choose.  Teen pregnancies or out-of-wedlock pregnancies are but a small part of the abortion discussion.  So all those other women want the right to choose -when they get pregnant unintentionally, when they have a seriously challenging medical situation with the unborn baby - when birth control doesn't work.  I for one also want all forms of birth control taught - not just abstinence - if you've raised teens you know -that the reality is that many of them will choose behaviors that can result in a pregnancy.  We need choice and education and information - not a one size fits all policy.  But I appreciate your thoughts and your position.

Thank you Amy, I relly appreciate your response. I am not against abortion in medical situations etc. I am into teaching our youth how to set healthy sexualy boundaries and not feel we need to give ourselves completely away even before we know ourselves. I think many of us have sex outside of marriage because we feel that partner can fulfill the emptiness we have deep in ourselves. I have learned only God can fill that emptiness. I feel so blessed where I am spiritually and I pray that our teens look deeper within themselves before they try and fulfill an emptiness. If they do get pregnant I am not for abortion. That is murder unless of course in medicaL/health situations where the mother or child will be in danger, but not as a form of birth control. The guilt and pain never goes away. I know from experience. Since I have experienced this, I am trying to teach others how to make different choices. I pray our youth put God first and respect themselves before this grave mistake is made. It affects family, friends and those in our lives. They need to think before they act and no just look out for themselves. What they do DOES affect others, but mainly themselves for a lifetime!

May God Bless you today,

Katie

I so appreciate your weighing with with your own life experience - lesson learned - and position - the different perspectives from people like you really make for an incredibly "eye opening" dialogue.

Couldn't have stated the issues any more clearly than that - thanks for weighing in.

I have made my personal peace with the fact that if faced with "choice" the mother has the ultimate "right to choose."  I have described earlier , the personal line that I draw in the sand when it comes to abortion.  I clearly hear your position and appreciate it.

I had this same discussion with someone the other day - too many children brought into the world are not adopted and put into a childcare system (not just in the US but worldwide) that only brings them undue suffering and pain ...and no parents.  Though I know many children given up for adoption -to avoid abortion - get loving homes - too many don't.  Then it goes to each person's definition of life and there is a huge disagreement on that as well.  So I simply agree to disagree.

It is not our choice to decide if a human life is better off dead than alive.

If we cannot abolish abortion, it would be in our best interest to make it more difficult to obtain. The nonchalant manner in which we handle the act of abortion doesn't exactly make a woman/man think twice before they engage in intercourse.

Are you familiar with the different abortion procedures? We kill convicted murderers with more dignity and compassion. You seem like an educated and kind woman. I can't imagine that this doesn't affect you. I wish you'd reconsider and stand up for the beautiful women growing inside their mothers right now. Be pro-choice, but don't discriminate against the unborn.  Let them make the choice for their bodies.  http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes

I do see your point, but at this stage in my life I have reconciled science - my religious beliefs - and the right to choice.  Your words, however, are echoed by many.

I really admire your calm, mature demeanor in handling people who fiercely disagree with you. 

I hope to earn a spot in heaven one day and I hope to see you there.

God bless you.

it has taken many years of developing really good listening skills and we all need to respect the positions and insights of others.  Ditto on your final comments!!

I think you do great injustice to the teen population by describing their behaviors as whorish - you clearly don't understand the mentality of teens, the responsibility and impact of both parents and peer groups and other issues that may determine why a teen decides to engage in sexual activity.  If you've possibly raised teens with no"behavior issues" then kudos to you - but frankly, you are part of the minority worldwide.

That being said the discussion has been about "choice" as it pertains to an unwanted pregnancy.  The teens are certainly a group to be focused on in this discussion - but the "choice" refers to a wide age range and again, the issue is a woman's right to choose.  Not just a "teen's right to choose."  It involves a person's interpretation of life, how they merge their religious/moral/science beliefs and my observation in the world of medicine is that for the most part, these decisions are not made in a cavalier way - by teens or adults.

Your legal discussion is sorely undermined by the manner in which you describe the teen population.

 Excuse me? I fully understand the mentality of teens- I was one three years ago. The difference is I also understand the practicality of relieving my own basal desires without potentiating the creation of another human being who didn't seek to be raised by irresponsible, immature parents. I agree with Joycelyn Elders- masturbation never impregnated anyone (nor did it ever bequeath herpes). Having had a couple lackluster sexual experiences (post-college, I might note) I cannot understand why anyone would undergo such stress and hardship for something so easily attended to in a private and immediate way. Sexuality serves a practical function and nothing more, and the perfunctory relief required for wellness need not involve other parties. People are far too guided by their ignorant, baseline emotionality and not by rational deduction of the choices laid before them. So yes, if you aren't smart enough to map the results of adolescent sexuality to their rational conclusion, you are whorish (or lecherous, depending on gender). These people used to immediately turn to productive factory work at age 12 or 13, but since ludicrous child labor laws were enacted 90 years ago they're forced to languish with other morons in high school and community college. My philosophy is, if you're old enough to procreate, you're surely old enough to work. Conversely, if you refuse to make your own living, then you oughtn't even risk bringing another person into your sorry microcosm. Also, overturning Roe v. Wade would *promote* choice; it would permit individual communities to choose how to regulate morality within their boundaries. Should someone disagree with those decisions, they certainly have the right to relocate (but if they're a dependent they're subject to the will of their parents anyway so regulation is kind of a moot point). The anti-federalist position has always been the pro-choice one.

without sounding patronizing, i too have very strict behavior patterns for myself, bu as a wise mother, teacher and health professional - I must tell you that your won "script' is not the script of the world -in fact, what makes people so incredibly unique are all the different perspectives, life experiences and other qualities they bring to the table.  You are also forgetting that any modification of pro-choice means that teens and women who are subject to incest, rape - may not be able to have the ability to terminate a pregnancy that was not their choice.

Again, I appreciate your incredibly narrow view of the discussion - but you've reduced it to a very limited evaluation and discussion.

 I thought being "anonymous" was kind of cheesy but I still refuse to give my full name. To my knowledge neither Republican candidate has proposed restricting abortion for incest/rape victims...whether Ms. Palin personally holds those views or not is rather irrelevant to subsequent public policy. Most pro-lifers tend to agree that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a fair compromise and don't wish to take it much further than that. Even Palin, in her stint as governor, hasn't pushed for significant state legislation limiting abortion. Yes, differences are what make humanity interesting, but I tend to have a pretty apriori view on such matters...acknowledging difference doesn't mean accepting it. There are correct and incorrect behavioral patterns, and while I don't endorse any national structure to affect them (even in a positive direction), I do think that is the aegis of individual communities (acting in concert with the majority view of parents). This is why pornography and indecency laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

My final comment would be that a Presiedent or VP who takes over has the ability to put into the supreme court the very individuals who do have the power to change current policy and laws.

Sarah Palin's position is "no choice" and that includes all situations - there are a number of websites that confirm with specific comments from her that stance.

I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on something you clearly have a stong position on - that being said - I know my perspectives have changed on many issues as I moved through decades and was exposed to life's realities and situations that wer e no longer someone else's - but rather my own  -i.e. as with raisin two very different teens- they do tend to force you to-re-think positions.  My only observation is that people with strong views can still hear the other person's position and agree that there are "2 sides to a coin."  I'm glad you are at least wiling to have a back and forth communication on this.  As with others who joined this forum discussion - - I simply agree to disagree.

I wouldn't presume to tell you anything because your words indicate to me that I won't penetrate a solid wall with differing opinions, scientific or moral belief - so I won't try.  I have very strong opinions too - but when you shut yourself off to even considering dialogue, communication , and seeing situations from different perspectives - you really rob yourself of some amazingly rich discussions and the ability to learn from others - even if - at the end - you still disagree.

I have friends from all walks of life, different races and cultures - our ability to talk about our differences (opinions, beliefs, life's experiences) allows us to be friends and to interact - and to HEAR each other - without closing doors irreverantly.  That is what makes for the human condition.

I have to confess - this is the first time I read a comment that articulated specifically about when "the soul enters" the child's body.  I have a feeling that many of us, who share your view about haste being essential - actually feel what you feel - that at a cellular level there is no soul yet.  Or maybe we just feel that there are clear circumstances, for each of us, that would warrant early choice.

Thanks for posting. 

What exactly do you base this belief on?  It certainly isn't from the Bible or any other religious teaching that I am aware of.  Could it be the religion of "I'll just make this up as I go along?"

Fred- the whole point of a "belief system" is that it isn't always based on "provable or interpretable factual information."  Just like there will be a never-ending discussion about whether G-d exists or which religion is the "ultimate religion" - there will also be positions that people take based on a mindset, life's experiences or simply intepretations that they personally make.  There are too many thinkgs that haopen in life or that have happened in history for those of us who are even science based - to not - give a bit of credence or respect to.

So at least be willing to hear perspectives that may not "jive" absolutely with your religious - science - other "beliefs." 

You're right about faith, but I would maintain that there must be some basis for what we believe.  Just making stuff up to appease your own conscience won't cut it.

Fred - I'll agree to disagree on this one.

Now we can determine when the soul enters a life!!  I suppose you can convince a pregnant 12 year old that she is doing that fetus a favor by making an informed, early, (but not quick), decision.  Don't hide behind a comment that you "don't like the idea of abortion in most cases". The fact that you would begin to write your own theology by deciding a soul passes to the next fetus when it is aborted, in a timely manner, is not only a huge stretch, but shows how people can try to rationalize any result of behavior.  Just when does the fetus gain it's soul?

I am a little confused.  Is this a forum on Sex Education for teens, or pro-life vs. pro-abortion, excuse me, pro-choice. 

As to the Sex Education in schools, I think it is ludicrous that schools should educate children on anything other than what they were built to do.  Our schools spend so much time teaching our youth how to behave sexually, raise a child, get along with their peers, etc., we have forgotten the basics of education which is and should always be emphasized; reading, writing and arithmetic.   The education of sexual behavior, raising babies, getting along with peers are the responsibility of PARENTS!!  It's time for parents to step up to the plate, take responsibility for their children, and stop depending on the government to do it for them. 

Now, as to the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument, and Palin's position.  She has every right to take a stand as to her convictions. 

Amy's article states that Palin's Abstinance Only position isn't working since her own daughter is now pregnant.  So one girl gets pregnant and the policy doesn't work?  Let's all go back to handing out condoms and educating how to prevent a pregnancy and still be sexually active.  Then we let our teens believe they are being responsible. 

I respect Sara Palin's position on abstinance, and even more her strength to allow her daughter's pregnancy to come out and be public.  She shows me that she has the ability to stand up to the ridicule that she could have easily avioded.  There are plenty of politcal figures that have covered up their own scandalous events.  I don't need to name them. 

Sara Palin and her daughter are very brave to stand before the public and show who they are.  They show me that they are part of a family that has strong convictions and morals, and will make this mistake become a blessing with the birth of a child. 

I also realize that without saying it some of the comments on this forum have hinted that Governor Palin should have aborted their last child that was born with down's syndrome.  I applaud her and support her decision.  I am also sure that she never wavered on her decision to carry her pregnancy to term. 

My own cousin was down's syndrome, lived to be 34 years old and even held a job.  She was a loving, affectionate person who had an incredible quality of life.  She did not "suffer" seroius disability.  She overcame her disability and her family supported and loved her. Gorvernor Palin is showing the same certitude as my cousin's family.  Her son will experience a loving, supportive environment.

My hope is that people will go to their voting polls knowing their own convictions, vote their own conscience, and not be clouded by so much rhetoric.

If one chooses to vote solely on the pro-life/choice issues, they are missing the boat.  There are much larger issues at stake that threaten the stability of our country, and if the only reason you don't like McCain/Palin is the pro-life stand, you sell yourself and our entire country short.

If you've read my own comments on the VP candidate you will know that I find her appealing, a great role model - but we differ dramatically on some rather crucial issues to me as a mom, health professional.  That being said I don't encounter too many people who "ridicule" the position of others - "they simply disagree and have another perspective."

To respond to one specific point youmake - I have unfortunately encountered "children and teens" who are not prepared to carry a pregnancy or see the process through to delivery of a child - they themselves are children and in no way made the choice to become pregnant.  For those, there needs to be a choice.  I see women who engage in careful contraception and have very good reasons to not want to see an unwanted pregnancy through to birth of the child - they cannot bear the costs financially or sometimes emotionally.  I cannot look at choice as a narrow view of  "it doesn't matter how this pregnancy took place" - it just has to be - I believe it very much does matter how and why and what are the ramifications of the pregnancy.

So though I appreciate the more hard-lined stance that many other shave - for me this is choice for women of all ages - with young people, when possible, having their parents involved in the decision.  I have worked in communities where f a young person could NOT turn to "the right to choose" their lives and the lives of the child who might have been born - would  be shattered.   

I am a Buddhist, and take my religion from a combination of Buddhist scripture and scientific knowledge, though thankfully the two have not yet to contradict. I did not simply come up with the idea of souls passing in this manner, it is a philosophy I learned after much study and internal reflection. Abortion is quite common in Asia due to Buddhist principles, though due to easy access to reliable birth control I consider abortions to be a bit of an irresponsible but neccessary last choice, except when protecting the mother from physical harm or in the obvious case of protecting the child's sould from being forced to enter a malformed, painful, or mentally stunted body.

I believe that the souls simply wait to find a new body after they leave the last one, and don't enter until later in pregnancy so if the body dies early, like in miscarriage or abortion, the soul simply doesn't enter it and waits for the next one.

Also, I would infinitely prefer a world in which sex education was not needed because parents took responsibility. But as long as parents refuse or are not informed enough to teach their children how to protect themselves from STDs or pregnancy, and insist on pretending that teenagers do not or have not always engaged in sex regardless of abstinence education, it will be needed. Better parents are overreliant on schools than children are born unwanted, or teenagers contract potentially fatal STDs.

Well, we all have to believe something.  So, do you also believe in natural selection and a perfect race? Would that make euthanasia acceptable?  How far do we go in deciding who has quality of life? Fact is fact.  Whether one chooses to believe it or not. 

So we can all go around telling ourselves that souls pass from one fetus to another.   They are just out there waiting to inhabit the perfect creation.  If that helps young girls caught in a situation unplanned and women who can't emotionally handle the responsibility or inconvenience of a raising a child, then justify abortions any way you want. 

I repeat fact is fact.  You can sugar coat it, but the end result is the same.  You have your right to believe what you believe, as do I.

My point, here and before, as to Sarah Palin is as follows.  Don't criticize her for her stand on abortion.  She has just as much right to her position as anyone. 

Her daughter didn't follow her advice.  She is pregnant.  Big surprise!!  Children don't always listen.  Some learn the lessons in life a bit harder than others.

She isn't bringing an unwanted child into the world.  She has stepped up and is taking responsibility for herself and her actions.  There is no doubt in my mind that that child won't be openly welcomed into a loving and caring family. 

There are countless children in this world that are unwanted or unloved.  Abortion has been legal for years, yet we still have unwanted and unloved children. 

I blame the welfare system in part for some of them.  Women have learned how to use and abuse the welfare system by having babies and benefitting from the programs.  They know they can have abortions, but the monetary benefits and food allowance tend to far outweigh the alternative.  Another government system that was created to help and has become a crutch for so many.

So believe what you want, if that makes you feel good about yourself and who you are.  Ultimately, we all have to believe something, but belief does not always translate into fact.  In the end we will all face reality.  I know my reality.

Wilma - even seriously commited religious individuals have the ability to understand that there are different religions and that the belief systems of those religions are to be respected.  I'm sorry, but the manner in which you express your convictions is precisely what brings on wars and killings  - the inability to respect differences- so in the end - you may believe that your beliefs are keeping babies alive - your inability to appreciate, respect and hear another's opinions without ridiculing or disrespecting them brings far more death in the world on a religious level.

Most of us reading the manner in which you state your positions - and you are certainly entitled to them - just feel sadness for you.  I think you misunderstand the purpose of discussion - even when it reflects strong opinions.  You need to be able to hear the other person - even if you disagree.  On a more personal level, you lose much when you are not able to respect other's religions and beliefs.  I daresay the head of your faith - has relationships with individuals from other faiths and truly respects them - though he may not agree with them.

Amy,

I don't argue that there are varying religions and belief systems.  I don't feel I have been disrespectful of Quiet One's belief.  It is clear that they have spent a great deal of time and effort in developing a religious view. 

My previous response was strictly an inquiry as to their belief toward natural selection and quality of life. And frankly, I do find it odd, maybe I should say interesting, that there are souls floating around the universe waiting for vessels to inhabit.  Where do they go when the vessel they inhabit dies?  I kind of got the impression they wait for another life to embody.

I do have a problem with a belief system that would call me an "infidel" and would wish only to see me and my fellow American's dead to further themselves in their kingdom.  I thought this was a thread about an upcoming election.

You accuse me of an "inability to appreciate, respect and hear another's opinions without ridiculing or disrespecting them....", while at the same time you point a finger at Governor Palin's stand and accuse her ideas of failure.  That sounds a lot like an inability to appreciate or respect without ridicule. 

Who are the "most of us" that are reading the "manner"  in which I comment and did they actually tell you they felt sadness for me? 

I have read the varying belief systems.  I respect an individuals right to believe them.  I have stated my beliefs.  Is it only okay to speak on this forum if you spread love and acceptance for what one believes and not ask questions? How else are we to understand another's belief system if we don't question?

How are my views or the way I present them "what brings on wars and killings"?  It seems to me that the manner in which you rebut my comments sounds as though you don't respect my right to voice them. 

I have one more question before I leave this forum.  Amy, when do you believe life begins? 

This has all been quite interesting, one point in which I agree with Quiet One.  I hope that I haven't angered the readers too much, and you can go back to justifying your beliefs and spreading the love.  I think I'll take up yoga.

My views on sexual education are that education and an understanding of all methods of birth control - including abstinence - are the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies; my view of abortion is that it is a charged issues with numerous perspectives but ultimately it is "the mother's choice."  i believe that creationism is but one of many perspectives to teach children.

I believe in my views but I always welcome the positions of others and of course, dialogue.  I don't believe in focusing on the singular phrases of a religion as a representation of the religion or the participants of the religion.

Exactly what "manner" are you reffering to?  The manner in which she disagrees with you?  This is your blog so you can do whatever you want, but if you only want posts from people who agree with you why don't you say that at the outset.  For someone who preaches tolerance it doesn't seem to me like you display much.

Fred - this is an open forum and if you look through my replies i think i've been extremely open to dialogue - but my position has always been that you can state your case without deriding-ridiculing- insulting others - it doesn;t work in the political arena - in fact, it's a total turn off to most voters - and it has no place in a vigorous, animated conversation - even when yiou disagree.  TYou can state strong feelings - absolutely have very different opinions and perspectives - heck, that's what makes for an incredible back and forth - I and others just think, when it comes to religious perspectives - be respectful as you state why you don;t agree.

Natural selection, yes. Perfect races, no, not at all. Buddhism teaches that we are constantly evolving and changing and that no species or person is superior, though the more intelligent a body is, the more likely the soul inside of it can obtain enlightenment. I also only support euthanasia if the individual selects it themselves and is of sound mind, or had an advance directive asking for it should they reach a certain point, as it is their decision, no one else's.

Of course, having her child was her choice. But to publicly state that she would not want other women to prevent a child with serious disability from living a life of suffering, one in which he will be unlikely to have the capacity to obtain enlightenment, is not just. I may think her decision is a sin that will count against her in the next life, but I will not say she cannot make the decision because that is her own path. I would no more want to require women to have abortions than I would want to deny them abortions.

Palin's daughter didn't listen to her mother's advice because she was fighting a biological drive. However, if she had been told about birth control and encouraged to use it, she might be able to have a normal young adulthood. She was not ultiamtely given the choice to have a child or not, she did not have the knowledge to make that decision.

I agree with you about the issue of welfare, though.

My beliefs often contradict with my desires, as do most. They also sometimes make me feel bad about who I am and what I beleive. I don't beleive them because they make me happy, I beleive them because they make logical and emotional sense to me, with my understanding of the universe. I also believe that whether your path sets you back in your quest for enlightenment or forward, it is your own path and should be driven by your own choices. This is Buddhism's most powerful message-- that all paths can lead to enlightenment, even if some take a little longer than others. Sometimes, I wish there were more faiths as tolerant, even encouraging, of other beliefs.

Amy Hendel, thank you. It's an interesting discussion.

I might also point out that sexual education does not mean condoning sex - it merely recognizes that teens are driven by a variety of internal and external mechanisms.  Maturity, clarity of action and good sense - does not often come till early adulthood - if even then.  To withhold education in the name of religion has always been a slippery slope for me, a health professional.

Thank you for re-visiting the forum and explaining to this particular individual who posted, where your set up beliefs comes from.  Your insights are painfully true.

From Quiet One: "...[I]f a woman aborts one child that child's soul will simply enter the next child she has, and her child's body may be stronger and more able to support the soul."

Fred's first answer was simple and perfect. I have never heard of any religious teaching (and that includes Buddhism) that espouses that notion. I believe God designs each soul for its very own body - they are not simply interchangeable parts like sparkplugs. That's a belief of pure convenience in my opinion.

"Abortion is quite common in Asia due to Buddhist principles...." No, it's not. In Japan and the West, yes, Buddhists tend to espouse the belief that abortion is acceptable, but other Buddhists do NOT. From what little I have read, there is as heated a discussion in the Buddhist community over the ethics of abortion as there is in the Christian community (liberal v. conservative). (Keown, Damien, ed. "Buddhism and Abortion: A Western Approach." Buddhism and Abortion. 1998.)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. In order to be taken seriously, however, I believe that one bears a responsibility to be able to cite sources (including religious writings) for their beliefs and explain the reasoning behind them. If one cannot provide a doctrinal basis (whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other), then I believe it's just as Fred said - making something up to assuage one's own conscience.

From Amy Hendel: "I cannot look at choice as a narrow view of 'it doesn't matter how this pregnancy took place' - it just has to be - I believe it very much does matter how and why and what are the ramifications of the pregnancy."

Here's the difference in a nutshell as I see it - you're looking at a finite event - a pregnancy - and making the determination that the event is inconvenient, difficult, problematic, devastating, etc. based on relatively short-term situational economics like finances, emotions, comfort, etc. I am looking at a person - an infant - and determining that this person has the right to life. Life is a basic human right, and where so-called "women's rights" conflict with "human rights" I will err on the side of human rights every time.

I ask both of you - does your belief espouse the infallibility of God? Mine does. My belief states that God in His infinite wisdom created a child (complete with soul at conception - I believe it to be supremely arrogant to determine otherwise!) and that He clearly desires this child to be cared for from that first moment. Because of His gift of free will, it is the choice of the individual as to how the care for His child is handled, but the returning of that gift to God is an outright sin.

Then there was this statement from Amy: "I'm sorry, but the manner in which you express your convictions is precisely what brings on wars and killings - the inability to respect differences- so in the end - you may believe that your beliefs are keeping babies alive - your inability to appreciate, respect and hear another's opinions without ridiculing or disrespecting them brings far more death in the world on a religious level."

First off, I think it's a mighty stretch to indicate that her tone was so threatening as to "bring on wars and killings."  That smacks of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) to me.  Also, she clearly appreciated and heard the comments from Quiet One and from you as she responded directly to them.  Just because she disagrees with them does not mean that she disrespects them, or you as the individuals who hold them dear.

Now, do my earlier statements mean I am "ridiculing or disrespecting" either of your beliefs? No, it does not, nor do I believe that Wilma was doing so either. It seems to me she was challenging your beliefs, just as I am, which is quite different. I think she was asking why you believe as you do. Quiet One came back to make a very clear and rational explanation, and I while I firmly disagree with the bulk of his/her statement, I certainly respect his/her right to say it and the thought that went into it. Just because I believe someone to be wrong does not mean that I disrespect them. I'm really not sure where you saw ridicule in Wilma's comments.

As for your own position, I respect that, too, but I disagree with it.  I also disagree with your comment about "feeling sadness" for Wilma.  That has a distinct ring of superiority and intolerance.  If someone is truly confident in his own beliefs it has been my experience that he does not get bent out of shape over having them challenged. That is truly what tolerance is all about.

Thank you for the opportunity to join in this discussion.

All points well made and again I think it boils down to citing ones beliefs which do not always have finite reasons or scientific or even biblical proof - that's why they are called beliefs - and stating ones point point without sounding like you are belittling the point - many found an incredibly contentious tone to some of the discussion so my point about "wars' was merely to highlight that point - I'll offer as well that in the jewish religion it is believed that a "soul needs to leave the earth for another to enter" - and I don't know that there is a finite clarififcation as to when that soul enters the new life -

My perspective on abortion has always been separate from my religious perspective - as a health professional I take that stance in euthanasia as well - everyday in hospitals and hospices the morphine drip is turned up just a bit beyond 'safety levels" to assista a dying person - yet hardliners will say - that is "killing a person to and we have no right to hasten the journey"  - so I too will "agree to disagree."

You state that you "believe that one bears a responsibility to be able to cite sources (including religious writings) for their beliefs."  You then go on to say that your "belief states that God in His infinite wisdom created a child (complete with soul at conception..."  Can you cite your biblical source for your belief that ensoulment occurs at conception?

"I'll offer as well that in the jewish religion it is believed that a "soul needs to leave the earth for another to enter...."

Just a question to give thought - how does that belief account for a growing earthly population? To me it sounds much like reincarnation which Judaism does not espouse.

"My perspective on abortion has always been separate from my religious perspective - as a health professional I take that stance in euthanasia as well...."

How can those be separate? We all behave as we believe.  I do not believe a person has the capability to act in a manner out of accord with his or her beliefs.  I also believe that we have the ability to change our beliefs - sometimes hourly (and I include myself in that).

"...[E]veryday in hospitals and hospices the morphine drip is turned up just a bit beyond 'safety levels" to assista a dying person - yet hardliners will say - that is 'killing a person to and we have no right to hasten the journey'...."

Are you saying this is done at the request of the patient, his family or the medical staff? You didn't specify.

The request is sometimes made by the patient or if the family is aware of the patient's desires or if the patient appears to be in a coma but showing signs of pain - there are a lot of variations on the scene but the reality or truth behind closed doors is that this occurs everyday across America and worldwide.  In hospice it is also a practice to sometimes medicate the pain knowing that the same medication level controlling the pain can hasten the demise of the patient.

I believe you can be spiritual or religious and have a set of beliefs and still make medical decisions that go counter to those beliefs.  I also agree that hearing other explanations and positions can change your beliefs or positions - which is why - during the earmark controversy that now follows Sarah Palin - i offer that she changed her position and I don't have a problem with that or see it as a contradiction.  People review information or have wisdom with hindsight and then take new positions.  Happens in politics all the time.

The request is sometimes made by the patient or if the family is aware of the patient's desires or if the patient appears to be in a coma but showing signs of pain - there are a lot of variations on the scene but the reality or truth behind closed doors is that this occurs everyday across America and worldwide.  In hospice it is also a practice to sometimes medicate the pain knowing that the same medication level controlling the pain can hasten the demise of the patient.

I believe you can be spiritual or religious and have a set of beliefs and still make medical decisions that go counter to those beliefs.  I also agree that hearing other explanations and positions can change your beliefs or positions - which is why - during the earmark controversy that now follows Sarah Palin - i offer that she changed her position and I don't have a problem with that or see it as a contradiction.  People review information or have wisdom with hindsight and then take new positions.  Happens in politics all the time.

The request is sometimes made by the patient or if the family is aware of the patient's desires or if the patient appears to be in a coma but showing signs of pain - there are a lot of variations on the scene but the reality or truth behind closed doors is that this occurs everyday across America and worldwide.  In hospice it is also a practice to sometimes medicate the pain knowing that the same medication level controlling the pain can hasten the demise of the patient.

I believe you can be spiritual or religious and have a set of beliefs and still make medical decisions that go counter to those beliefs.  I also agree that hearing other explanations and positions can change your beliefs or positions - which is why - during the earmark controversy that now follows Sarah Palin - i offer that she changed her position and I don't have a problem with that or see it as a contradiction.  People review information or have wisdom with hindsight and then take new positions.  Happens in politics all the time.

Not reincarnation -  just that one soul leaves and makes "space for a new soul" - it is not the same soul leaving and entering.

The request is sometimes made by the patient or if the family is aware of the patient's desires or if the patient appears to be in a coma but showing signs of pain - there are a lot of variations on the scene but the reality or truth behind closed doors is that this occurs everyday across America and worldwide.  In hospice it is also a practice to sometimes medicate the pain knowing that the same medication level controlling the pain can hasten the demise of the patient.

I believe you can be spiritual or religious and have a set of beliefs and still make medical decisions that go counter to those beliefs.  I also agree that hearing other explanations and positions can change your beliefs or positions - which is why - during the earmark controversy that now follows Sarah Palin - i offer that she changed her position and I don't have a problem with that or see it as a contradiction.  People review information or have wisdom with hindsight and then take new positions.  Happens in politics all the time.

Not the same sould so not reincarnation - just one soul leaves to allow a new soul and person to enter the world - and this is merely a philosophical exploration - not necessarily a solid dogma that is believed

With all due respect you'll have to cite a source on your statement about Jewish beliefs.  I don't buy that for a second.  It is completely contrary to Scripture and logic as Pebbles pointed out.

Amy, I wonder why you always include the elusive "others" in your replies.  Is your self-confidence so low that you can't have your own opinions?

Fred

Fred - the jewish religion, as i understand it, has a number of "interpretations that have been verbally passed down, written down or simply anecdotally referenced.  This particular one was discussed on more than one occasion at lectures and classes that I attended.  The fact that I can't reference it in no way should diminish its existence.  The "others" I refer to have chosen not to join the forum discussion for reasons unknown to me -  but merely to send personal e-mails to me as an expert/blogger on the site with their thoughts. 

Again, Fred - you can dialogue on beliefs without having references for every statement- it's called faith. 

No, you may not reference a specific belief, assign it to a religion and expect everyone to just accept it as fact because you say so.  This is not your personal belief that we're talking about here.

You said that your inability to reference it doesn't mean it is invalid.  I would argue that it indeed does render it invalid.

Fred  genius/blogger

Fred - Your faith is not serving you well.  You need to re-think how you talk about choice, faith and beliefs  - AND how you explain their references sor their lack of them-

I'll go back to the primary principle of this forum which was to weigh in on the VP candidate and her positions on choice, sex ed and creationism.  I disagree with her position on all three but I recognize that she has her basis for those positions.  I agree to disagree with her.  I also have found my ability to respond to your comments at an end.

Please feel free to continue to post.

"I believe God designs each soul for its very own body - they are not simply interchangeable parts like sparkplugs."

According to Buddhism, a soul passes from one body to the next after we die in a cycle, only broken by enlightenment. A body is simply a vessel for whichever soul is destined to be born to those parents, and it doesn't matter if it's this one or the next one or if it never happens with those parents and another similar set is chosen. This is what I have understood from my readings of Buddhist text, particularly the writing of the Dalai Lama and other modern Buddhist leaders.

"No, it's not. In Japan and the West, yes, Buddhists tend to espouse the belief that abortion is acceptable, but other Buddhists do NOT."

It really depends on the individual culture. In China and Tibet, abortion was always common, if frowned on, as in Japan. In other Asian countries, it has been called into question recently because there is a question of the man's right over the woman's body, and if women having that much control over fertility is a good thing. Buddhism does not, however, support or like abortions as a form of birth control due to the risk they can pose to the mother. Most Buddhists beleive the soul enters later in pregnancy, often as late as birth-- there is no moral objection in Buddhism to an early abortion, except that the woman should have used other means first and was foolhardy with her body.

"I ask both of you - does your belief espouse the infallibility of God?"

My beleif says any supreme being is bound by their own laws, because they would not want to be all-powerful and thus prone to corruption. I also do not beleive that God would bother putting a soul into a body when there's a 40% chance that body will naturally die early in pregnancy, as that seems like a waste of souls. Besides, I beleive that the physical brain must be able to hold a soul, and the brain does not develop until later. And I believe God is bound by scientific perameters, which dictate that errors like Down's will happen, thus, God is stuck giving you a Down's child and hopes you can deal with it however you like.

I am not common among Buddhists, though, most Buddhists are atheistic and do not, as the stereotype is, worship the Buddha as a God.

I understand that you don't feel that way. That's fine, that is your path. Just acknowledge that I have a right to my religious beleifs, and unless you intend to point to every example in your religious text where God said souls enter at the time of conception, you should allow me my own beleifs without needing external validation. And part of my beleifs says it is a sin to carry a child to term knowing they will be handicapped, because I beleive I can save them from that fate by aborting and trying again.

That ultimately is the point-- it's not about my beleifs vs. your beliefs, it's about finding a system where both our beleifs can be included. That system means birth control widely availiable, limiting late-term abortions except for maternal health, and yes, allowing abortions to be legal. Because under this system, you have the freedom to not have an abortion because you beleive it is wrong, and I have the freedom to have one if I need to, because I beleive to do otherwise would be wrong. And Palin has essentially said, "My beleifs are better than yours and I want to impose them on you." Why should I vote for such a candidate?

Thank you for the additional clarification - I know most readers appreciate the different perspectives being shared in the forum.  I , as you -believe that everyone is entitled to their strong beliefs.

"My beleif says any supreme being is bound by their own laws, because they would not want to be all-powerful and thus prone to corruption."

I am NOT trying to insult you when I say that is an arrogant thing to say.  How can we presume to know the mind of God? The only way we can ever know His wishes is through His Word to us, which, according to Christianity, is the Bible.  We believe it to be the infallible, inspired Word of God.

This statement: 

"According to Buddhism, a soul passes from one body to the next after we die in a cycle, only broken by enlightenment. A body is simply a vessel for whichever soul is destined..." 

is in direct conflict with this statement: 

"I also do not beleive that God would bother putting a soul into a body when there's a 40% chance that body will naturally die early in pregnancy, as that seems like a waste of souls."

If the body is destroyed yet the soul lives on, how would that be a waste of a soul? Its life cycle would surely be short, but according to your first statement, it would just move back into the queue.

"And I believe God is bound by scientific perameters, which dictate that errors like Down's will happen, thus, God is stuck giving you a Down's child and hopes you can deal with it however you like."

We differ here as well.  I believe God created scientific laws, but He cannot be bound by something He created.  I believe that in most cases He chooses to abide by them, but I emphatically state that by His very nature (immortal, omnipresent, infallible, omnipotent, omniscient) He cannot be bound by them aside from His own choice.

I don't believe that He causes something like Down's will occur, but because of the choices of the ancestors allows it to happen.  I believe that God is omniscient and already knows how things work out in every single instance.

It strikes me as maybe our concepts of God don't quite match up.  And maybe that's where we should have started this dialog.

I absolutely do respect your right to believe differently than I.  I don't think I've acted otherwise.  Your opinions are as strong as my own and I expect to have to give a reason for my own beliefs the same as I've asked it of you. :)  I am enjoying this conversation as I see it as an exchange, not a criticism.

Blessings to you. :)

I appreciate the point by point responses you've been making and it is clear you are hearing the other perspectives, though you staunchly disagree - which is the purpose of these kinds of blog discussions.  I do think each religion has different perspectives on the existence of souls - some of the remarks made have been an education for me and I assure you, others.

Please continue both the spirited dialogue and the observations/comparisons.  My unhappines as a moderator was merely when certain posted comments seemed to be getting derisive or completely off track.

"If the body is destroyed yet the soul lives on, how would that be a waste of a soul? Its life cycle would surely be short, but according to your first statement, it would just move back into the queue."

It does, but it requires effort and energy to put a soul into a body, and thus, would be a waste if there is very little chance that the body would survive, because the soul would never have a chance to reach enlightenment or even build up good or bad karma. There is little point to a life that is cut short before it even leaves the womb; even a microbe has more chance of moving forward or back.

Buddhism does not allow for an all-powerful creator god, because everything is bound by natural law, and while there are higher powers that have a great deal of control over the laws of nature they cannot break those laws. That's just part of the belief structure and you don't have to agree, but in Buddhism to assume a god would be benevolent is not arrogance, it's faith, and Buddhism teaches that nothing that is not bound by natural law can be benevolent, it will inevitably be corrupted. Thus for a god to be benevolent they MUST be bound by natural laws, and a malevolent god not bound by natural laws would already have destroyed humanity or the universe.

On the contrary, my faith is serving me quite well, thank you very much.

Your intellect seems to be failing you.  quote:  I also have found my ability to respond to your comments at an end. 

I agree, it's obvious you are in way over your head.

Good bye

When it comes to the choice issue, medical insurance and other health issues - they are "married" unfortunately to politics - so that's the reality of this modern society.  To talk about them in a medical forum is probably the best place. 

That being said - I too am impressed with some of the policy changes in her state that Ms. Palin has been responsible for and I am impressed with her incredible delivery at the podium, her clear devotion to her state and her family.  But as you can tell from this discussion - science - religion and yes, politics will be ongoing discussions on any medical website that is relevant because these subjects have become polarizing and connected.

You are the first to use that term - I guess i would have gone with "incredibly hard-lined on certain principles" that are important to her.

And yes, I have heard many comment over the fact that her position has" blown up in her face" because of her daughter's actions.  I would say as a parent - that I have had very strong feelings on certain behaviors and raised my kids with that mantra - only to have one go along with it and another do the direct opposite - go figure.  There are stronger things at work than just what we teach our children - but we still have to "teach what we believe."  so i don't necessarily fault her on that - I do think when it is too "hard line" - it oftens achieves the opposite. 

Sometimes few words say the most!!

Pretty much my position and isn't it grand that we live in a country where we do currently get to make these personal choices and to discuss them out loud.

I have to say that one is a tough call because some/many of the individuals who have posted their positions on the abortion issue and other devisive issues have made it clear that the political candidate they feel connected to - usually shares these positions.  I think that is why Obama's relationship with certain individuals really put off a large group of voters - because association or position are very much intertwined with the policies you may, as the new president, want to see either re-inforced or changed once you are in office.

That being said, I have repeatedly offered that personally I find Ms. Palin appealing on many levels and problematic on other levels - some of which do have to do with experience and some which have to do with her perspectives on abortion, sex ed, and creationism.  Because I am not an Obama fan - I know have a more difficult choice to make.  McCain's choosing of Palin as his running mate does speak volumes to me on an issue that I am hard-lined on - abortion - so I await the debates and more information in the coming weeks.

The freedoms and rights of this great nation that we live in, is manifest from the work  and will of all that came before us. And because of those individuals, we have a democracy that is based on choices stemming from the collective knowledge and wisdom of the people. So whomever is elected into office, whatever their personal beliefs, must have a the support of a majority number of elected officials and citizens to initiate a change in the representation of our constitution. I may not agree with her personal belief, but I do agree with Palin's integrity to stand up for what she believes. That speaks volumes in the face of the liberal and socialist movement in this country.

I totally agree with you on her integrity to stand strong on her positions and the fact that our country IS an incredible place to live because all perspectives on these issues are allowed to be vocalized. Supreme court justices who decide on the abortion issue and other issues - and who vote based on their "leanings" are nominated by our presidents - even though they are still subject to approval.  So the religious positions of our most senior politician does very much make a difference.

That analogy takes a situation that has an enormous range of treatment possibilities and realities and narrows it down to the worst scenario.  MOST ABORTIONS or pregnancy terminations occur when there isn't even a fetus but rather cellular devlopment - not the picture you so pictorally describe - so I need to really "shout out" that many of us are not necessarily comfortable with abortions performed beyond a certain stage of development unless the baby is severly compromised or the mother's life is in danger - HOWEVER - until better or more stringent parameters are put in place - I still need choice for the many teens, women who find themselves in an unexpected or untenable situation and who quickly move to "choice" as a means to deal with this situation.

Screaming the most negative situation - which is unpalatable to most of us - merely sheds light on a sector of this discussion -- not the overriding majority of D and Cs that occur quite early on.

Let's be glad that your Mother didn,t decide to have a "D+C" when you were a "cellular mass". With the death of that cellular mass would have been the death of you- the human person...

As most women do, my mother planned the birth of both her children at an age that she was both mature enough to cope with a pregnancy and birth of a child and at a time when financially she was prepared to support those children.  she would have most certainly had a D& C for any addtional unplanned children and I am fine with that reality.  I myself conducted my life in a similar fashion and had I had an "unwanted pregnancy" - I would have immediately chosen my recourse without guilt.

Then , as I said ,we should be grateful that your mother planned better than the 50 million others.

 Why do you call it a D+C- it's an Abortion...

In medical terms at a very early stage, D & C is quite an appropriate use of a description of the procedure, though if abortion settles the matter for you, then yes, abortion is the term -  and again, it is precisely the right of those of us who do carefully plan pregnancies, as well as other situations, that warrants "choice."  I however, appreciate and respect your perspective on the issue - I simply don't agree with it.

I agree with your first statement and have always felt that way.  these are individual issues not broad statements on one's womanhood - at least for me.  I also think your point on rape is interesting - never heard it stated that way.  I also can hear both sides of the discussion - even though i have a strong stance on one side.

I do believe, though, that you don't have to be all or nothing because I do have a problem when people use abortion as a sole means of birth control - wait too long to make their decision  - and though I can see that many people in the forum simply don't like or understand that perspective - that is my position.  For them - it is an all or nothing discussion.

Well, Gilbert, since the discussion is less about politics and more about Governor Palin's positions on several hot topics, I'll assume you are not a fan of hers on intellect as well as on key positions and you clearly are not voting Republican.  So be it.

I assume you are the mother of several kids, have enormous life experience, are right on just about everything you debate and plan to rule the world your way???  Correct??   Oh no, excuse me - I didn't ask you exactly how I should respond, so let me try again - Pardon me for even assuming to have any right to any kind of position on choice that is in direct opposition to yours- you need to just tell me what to say and what to do and pretty much how to think so the world can run pretty much your way - that would allow for a lot of debate - correct??

Oh no - in your world there is no debate right?? In your world everyone is told what to do -  your way - with your specific interpretation of the bible and the laws only your way- right?? Oh, not really, because it's starting to sound an awful lot like communism, and in communism - there isn't really a strong perspective on religion - or even religious freedom.   That's a world where you're not allowed to dispute the current laws on the books. In this country, luckily, and in the world of this particular blog - the author has actually allowed you to post your position even though it is narrow minded - lacks any sensibility or clarity - and frankly offers very little to the discussion except alot of rhetoric.  But because this is a "forum where all views can be offered" - and not your controlled and very narrow and scripted blog- this author has not problem allowing your comments to stand.  Because this author's blog is intended to spur discussion and different viewpoints. 

On the matter of letting kids/teens learn from their mistakes or very poor judgements - telling a teen who has poor judgement, poor impulse control and poor sensibilities that they have to have the baby so that  "can learn from their mistake" is often times telling a baby they have to have a baby - and to me it is a very misguided view of parenting at best.  I'm all for consequences but as you point out - there are 2 possible lives here at stake.  I am totally for each individual making their own personal decision that reflects what is best for them - even at the cost of terminating a pregnancy.  That makes me pro- individual decision which translates to "pro-choice.'"  As for my position on when life begins, I am wearying of responding but again - I am comfortable with my position on when life begins, how to view life in the womb and the situations in which I feel abortion has a place in society. 

Please note that this blog author is not "controlling the forum" but rather attempting to keep the dialogue ongoing.   

We in America would not condone any sexual relations with a relative as close as an Aunt. Additionally, your aunt is clearly married - though her husband is away - so having a relationship with another man's wife - again - a moral issue most of us would find unacceptable.

Please re-consider your actions and find a woman closer to your age that you are not related to.  Anytime you have sexual intercourse without a condom, you are risking a pregnancy.

I have heard your story many times and can appreciate your position and the experience and it's impact on you.  That being said, many women have no serious emotional consequences after abortion because they have done their soul searching and decided it was the correct decision for them.  It doesn't make them less religious or less moral - it means they made a decision that was personally correct for that instance, for that time in their life - and it can mean that they would do it again or that after having significant time to think about it - they would not.

There is no doubt that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin threw "a wrench" in the minds of many voters who would have chosen to vote for him, but now, faced with his VP choice, cannot.  Predominantly this involves women voters who may have even moved to the McCain camp once Hilary was off the list and now, cannot in good conscience vote for a President who has chosen a woman with these hard line perspectives on abortion and other issues.

My response is that if you get pregnant willfully, by accident or by some other situation (even unwanted) you have the right to choose to bring the product of that into this world - we, who want choice, simply want the choice not to.  That is precisely what is so great about choice.  And I offer to all those who believe in "saving all the babies" - if each of you will simply, right now, adopt one baby - then maybe it will be worthit to those unwanted children who are left without parents or the advantageof adoption, to be brought into this world.  So my position is - don't just go to bat for the unborn - d0o something about all those on "Earth whom you seem to feel have a right to be here.  Now there's proactivity.

Ken - Most women who choose to have "an abortion" use emergency contraception or have an abortion in the first month or two when there are cells and the beginning of an embryo forming - so all of you who choose to describe abortion in its most extreme terms need to get real and realize the atatistics do not begin to support your contention.  Most abortions are not extreme and occur way early in the pregnancy because most women are "respectful of their body and their choice."  Enough with the extremism already.  There is no doubt that a percentage of abortions occur this way and might I add in enough cases when abortion was not easily accessible and the woman had to wait to find and travel to a location she could access - in many states - if we made it more accessible - the abortion would be done at an earlier stage of pregnancy.

And I would again, as I have before, respond with respect , that unless every Christian who says abortion is a sin or who says that women do not have the right to choice- adopts an "unwanted but delivered child" - I think the attitude is extremly cavaliar.  When you believe in something then I believe it requires and so why are their so many children who remain unadopted by the very Christians who believe in their right to be born.  I think that is not onloy hypocritical but rreprehensible.  At minimum I except that pregnancy can occur unintentionally and I accept the responsubility for my body and my actions and I therefore appropriately choose - choice.

I too have witnessed what you describe and I could not agree with you more.  thanks for your honest and personal experience post. 

And I will again suggest that you "put your money where your mouth is " and start adopting those babies.  How easy for you to make religious decleration -they are just words - at minumum as a health expert and PA I have seen and made case by case medical decisions  - since you can't do that it's time to start adopting those babies you want brought to life and its time your church starts organizing adoptions on mass levels.  Until you do that - I don't even think you have entitlement to your opinion since you do nothing to support that decleration except offer us alot of empty words with no actions.  I and pthers find you quite hypocritical at best.

I would like to reitterate that you can believe what you want and that is great but you don't have the right to push your beliefs off on others. While personally I would not have an abortion, I know that I cannot tell any other woman what to do. And I guess maybe neither should you. Unless you have walked in someone else shoes.....

That's is why so many women feel "choice" is the only tenable position - because it allows women from each "camp" to make their decision - without forcing others to do or not do what they personally believe in.

I agree with you that I have never considered the choice issue synonomous with pro-woman.  I have friends who do not agree with me on choice (for religious reasons, such as yourself) and yet I consider them very "pro-women." for them this is a religious issue separate from most other issues because it does involve a very specific decision.  though i am personally pro-choice - I don't equate the two as being necessarily linked in ideology.

To bottom line it - you call it a baby from the fertilization point - many of us do not - we can argue about definitions and clarifications and how you see it and how we see it - but with great clarity as a female, mother, health professional - I have drawn a personal line in the sand - I believe the woman has the right to determine emergency contraception, abortion (as early as possible - I would hope if that is the determination) or abortion if the pregnancy was the result of "invasion of the woman's rights" i.e. rape or incest.

Again, i would ask - since your position sits so strongly on the other side - how many children who are the product of a non-abortion choice and who are sitting in adoption agencies or foster homes have you adopted?? Since you prescribe to the "all should live doctrine" - I'm just wondering how many of these children you are planning on housing -supporting - raising as your own since you value their right to existence so fundementally.  No judgement, of course, just curiosity.

To bottom line it - you call it a baby from the fertilization point - many of us do not - we can argue about definitions and clarifications and how you see it and how we see it - but with great clarity as a female, mother, health professional - I have drawn a personal line in the sand - I believe the woman has the right to determine emergency contraception, abortion (as early as possible - I would hope if that is the determination) or abortion if the pregnancy was the result of "invasion of the woman's rights" i.e. rape or incest.

Again, I would ask - since your position sits so strongly on the other side - how many children who are the product of a non-abortion choice and who are sitting in adoption agencies or foster homes have you adopted?? Since you prescribe to the "all should live doctrine" - I'm just wondering how many of these children you are planning on housing -supporting - raising as your own since you value their right to existence so fundementally.  No judgement, of course, just curiosity.