Politics

[ellenmillion]

I don't generally follow party politics, and I usually lean slightly more democratic than republican (when forced to choose), but McCain TOTALLY won me with his VP nomination. I have nothing but respect and admiration for our governor Palin. I think I may have cheered out loud when I read that. Go Sarah!

PS: Don't worry, that's probably all the politics you'll get out of me for the whole rest of the election.



ETA: WHY I like Sarah Palin. Disclaimer: I don't generally follow politics, and I base this fondness on not much more than my own personal experiences... you want a fair, in-depth and researched opinion, that's not here. This is the stuff that affects me directly.

Point 1. She's tough and charismatic. She usually has a smile on her face and is upbeat and cheerful. I really like her get-it-done attitude. It's something I respect in anyone.

Point 2. She repealed the fee hikes for business licenses that her awful predecessor levied.

Point 3. She thinks ahead and gets it done. Alaska is going to get a natural gas pipeline someday soon. Not only is she working towards that, she's not considering 'oh, we've negotiated it' as the end of the deal. She's already allotted the money to improve our roads to the point where they will handle the construction equipment needed to make it happen. She's looked at things that slowed the 70's gas pipeline and thinking YEARS ahead.

Point 4. At the same time, she's managed to get an oil relief bill through the red tape so that every Alaskan is getting an extra $1200 with their PFD next month. I dunno that it's the best possible solution to the problem, but it Got Done, and I gotta give kudos to her for that.

Point 5. She doesn't say stupid things. There are so many people in politics that I otherwise like that just up and say Stupid Things periodically and make me cringe to support them. She hasn't done that (that I've noticed).

Point 6. Some folks are saying her 'husband is in oil' like this is a bad thing, but he is an oil operator, which is a far, far, FAR cry from being an oil CEO or an oil executive. An operator is a blue-collar, dirt-under-the-nails job. I like that, too. If we smear everyone who ever works in oil ever with the paintbrush of Slimy Big Oil Execubots, that would include a LOT of good, hardworking technicians I know and would be brutally unfair. I like politicians who come from families that work for a living.

Someone mentioned that she ran on a creationism in school campaign, too, but I honestly don't remember ever seeing that. Like I said, I don't pay much attention to politics.

As with all politics, I do suggest you do your own research and go with your own gut. But I feel GOOD about Palin being our VP.

Comments

[steppinrazor.livejournal.com]

This is where the labels become silly.

I'm pro-choice, but I'm also certainly very pro-life. I'm not anti-life, for certain. I believe, that even though abortion wouldn't be MY personal choice, it should be available and protected for women who have NO other choice. There are plenty of unwanted children in the world as it is, and people aren't exactly clamoring to adopt. I should also point out that when abortion was illegal, people still found ways to have it done - ways that were dangerous, inhumane, unhealthy, unsafe... It's not going to magically go away when the government stops protecting it.

When "pro-life" rhetoric becomes downright dangerous is when it's coupled with the current "regulations" being passed that give doctors the ability to be "conscientious objectors" to medical procedures or prescriptions they disagree with. Down to a pharmacist being within his rights to reject supplying birth control pills. Add to that, that Palin doesn't seem to support sex education, and you've got a really, really bad mix, in my opinion. If you're going to outlaw abortion at LEAST give people the proper tools to avoid getting pregnant.

As well, if you were raped, or molested by a family member, would you really want to carry that child to term?

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

Doctors have the right to be conscientious objectors here, (thank God) and that doesn't stop anybody wanting to have an abortion, would you want to 'force' a doctor to perform an homicide? No thanks, ditto for farmacists.
The one about adoption...sorry there are year-long waiting lists here.

-As well, if you were raped, or molested by a family member, would you really want to carry that child to term?
Loaded question, I don't know what I would do (and neither do you or anyone else until one is in that siutuation), but has the innocent to pay for the crime of another?

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, I think one can figure out what they would do if they were pregnant with a rapist's child without having it happen. I can tell you that it took months for me to stop feeling sick over it after being raped, and there is NO way I could have spent nine months carrying his child if I'd gotten pregnant. I agree that most of the time you have to be in a situation to know what you would do, but this is one time when I feel confident that many women can understand and figure it out. And whether or not a two week old group of cells is actually an "innocent life" is a whole other matter... but in my opinion, that group of cells should not take precedence over a woman whose had a terrible experience. At some point I think abortion does become murder, but not at the beginning.... and this is all a huge gray area that one person or group shouldn't be able to decide on for everyone.

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

Here's were we differ 'that group of cells' is a human being.
I and you were 'that group of cells' once.

[pseudopagan.livejournal.com]

By that token, using condoms is homocide. There are people who will argue that is the case, by virtue of nothing more than the same faith your 'group of cells' must be a human being. Are they wrong? If so, why are they wrong but you're right?

Of course, you might actually believe that, I suppose. What you're espousing isn't really very far from it.

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

Not true: condoms act by not allowing fertilization, the sperm doesn't *reach* the egg, much less fertilize it, neither the sperm nor the egg are alive, on their own, each has only half of a genetic code.

Once fertilization has happened what you have is a human being, why? Because if left to it's own devices (barring interruption of pregnancy by natural occurrence or artificial means)it will grow and be born as human being, I've never heard in nature of something 'magically transformed'into something it wasn't to start with.

[pseudopagan.livejournal.com]

And during the act of copulation, the biological processes of the two engaged will (barring interruption of fertilization by natural occurence or artificial means) progress and be born as a human being.

I'm sorry, but that is what your argument that a cluster of cells with no discernible anatomy, neural activity, or even the semblance of awareness amounts to. You are making an arbitrary decision that a purely biological process must be designated as a 'human being' in exactly the same way that those who make the arbitrary decision that condoms are murder are.

Why don't you just come out and say you believe God thinks it's murder, and stop trying to cloak your arguments in this ridiculous veil of science? Because frankly, the idea that anyone would actually assert that a 15 year old girl raped by her father should be forced to go through months of pregnancy and the further trauma of giving birth (and yes, for that girl, in that circumstance, trauma is exactly the word to use), just because you believe a cell splitting into a couple more cells means suddenly it's a human life? Is disgusting.

[(Anonymous)]

You may put it as you like and I don't want to hijack Ellen's thread any more, but I'm really curious to see what you from your high seat of absolute knowledge see as the beginning of human life and on which scientific basis. Feel free to get in touch with me through my profile.

[pseudopagan.livejournal.com]

You posted as Anonymous so I'm not sure which of the comment folk you are (maybe the one I was speaking to, but I'm not sure).

You're right about not using Ellen's journal as a springboard for this, though.

Here's my response.

[steppinrazor.livejournal.com]

Let me be clear on something.

There are many MANY medical fields out there. Nobody, NOBODY has to take on a field of expertise that "Forces" them to perform any procedure they have moral objections to. If you don't want to be in a position to perform an abortion, pick a different medical field. It's that easy.

If you don't want to distribute birth control, which will help REDUCE the numbers of abortions being performed in the first place, don't be a pharmacist.

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

'birth control' is one thing, the 'pill of the day after' is an abortive, and by the way women *have died* during clinical text for it. We have something potentially deadly that was experimented on women, I haven't heard anyone from the pro-choice field (at least over here) protesting against THAT hazard against women's health.

And so if I were in the USA I wouldn't have the right to choose to be a gynechologist if I did want to be able to not perform abortions? Well that's great for allowing one freedom of choice...
Frankly, with all the problems we have over hereI'm happy to live were I live.
And don't kid yourself, were abortion is legal it *is* used as birth control, I see it happen all the time with my Chinese immigrant women at the preliminary talk:
" I don't want the child"
" OK have you had previous abortions ?"
"Yes"
" How many?"
"...I don't recall...was it 4 or 5?"
Even the doctor cringed at this, and she isn't an objector.
By the way it isn't *that* easy, a woman has to have blood tests before and an ecography, so one would need to stay clear of radiology and lab too, why has one to be frightened of leaving doctors their freedom of choice? Fear that too many would opt out? That would tell me something...

[steppinrazor.livejournal.com]

From what I know of China, it's not an equable situation. And even IN China (and all around the world), we wouldn't SEE abortion used as "Birth control" if people were properly educated and given access to contraceptives - but sex education is taboo to the religious right (we must'n't let children know they have penises and vaginas), and contraceptives are met with superstition and fear in many parts of the world, often due to religious underpinnings that frown upon masturbation, condoms, and premarital sex, but don't give people the tools to deal. In Africa, people still believe they can cure their AIDS by raping children, and because of the very strong Catholic influence, combined with a lack of funding and lack of outreach, there's nothing much to counteract this behavior and rampant spread of a preventable disease... but I digress.

If you find it morally repugnant to perform an abortion, as a gynecologist, then yes, you should choose another field. Even if abortion were -outlawed-, it would still come up as a medical procedure that's occasionally necessary to save the life of the mother. It's like any other job, really. If you don't want to wash dishes, don't be a waitress.

The problem, however, with this pending regulation, is that it affects primarily people in lower-income areas who don't HAVE access to many doctors, and it gravely affects preventative methods (as much, if not moreso than abortion - most people will go to specific abortion clinics, not general doctors). The doctor refusing the procedure doesn't even have to provide a referral (and it's not limited to abortion - a doctor could refuse treatment to a Muslim individual based on morality, a doctor could decide not to treat a kid who's a recognized gang member, and theoretically be within his rights). This violates the very oath taken when one becomes a doctor.

I must note I have also seen no statistics, for that matter (at least from an unbiased source) that shows abortion being used as birth control. Only anecdote.

But you know, none of that matters. What matters is that abortions will continue to happen whether legal or not - the difference is the level of care and guidance that can be offered, and the level of danger the mother is potentially in. I, as a woman, have absolute domain over MY body. It is MY choice, not the government's, and the government has no right to place directives on my body, whether by writ of majority or not. Of course I dearly wish to see abortion rates drop and dwindle. I would love if it weren't needed at all, and were a rare medical procedure. But until people step up and begin actually educating people on proper prevention methods (aside from abstinence), I would rather see women able to get it in a safe environment.


(Ellen, I'm sorry for polluting your journal with all this rhetoric, and I'll bow out now.)

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

All the previous abotrions had happened in Italy, not China.

And since the poor have a problem just let them kill their children?
Education is the answer, not abortion.

Just for the record: doctors have a right to declare themselves as objectors for matter of conscience here and yet abortion is legal and one has no trouble having an abortion if she wants.

BTW the 'strong catholic influence' is pure bull, contagion of AIDS in Uganda went *down* because of cooperation of the government and the church in providing *education*, and that's on official and proven records.

Just as the fact that in many countries abortion *is* a birth control method, over here it's a big problem with many immigrant women and we are working in educating towards use of preventive methodes: Nigeria, Eastern Europe (Albania, Romania and former SSSR) and China are the main examples and there *are* studies on the fact.
And that's all I've to say on the matter

[pseudopagan.livejournal.com]

Just for the record: doctors have a right to declare themselves as objectors for matter of conscience here and yet abortion is legal and one has no trouble having an abortion if she wants.

And here we have 'objectors' keeping rape victims in a hospital for 'observation', while not providing the morning after pill because of their objections, and the victims not finding out until it's too late that they've been kept past the period where it may be used in smaller (-safer-) dosages as an emergency contraceptive.

[steppinrazor.livejournal.com]

I suppose the bottom line is, simply, your country and my country are very different. Just as individual states have vastly different needs, so, too, do different countries and cultures.

I'm not going to argue about this in Ellen's journal anymore.