The Watch

The Watch is concerned about the increasing pressure towards feudalism in the United States from corporations, social regressives, warmongers, and the media. We also are concerned with future history concerning our current times, as non-truths which are “widely reported” become the basis for completely false narratives.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Palin Watch III

See! Abstinence-only sex-ed really works... some of the time, anyway!

Living proof is offered by Ms. Sarah Palin, who, as we all know, runs a staunchly conservative state and household, and who offers her family up as the pinnacle of religiousity and moral uprightitudiness!

Democrats noted, before and after today's announcement, that Palin took a hard line on a question in 2006 from the conservative Eagle Forum Alaska:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

As we found out today, religious-based abstinence-only sex-ed really works, except when unmarried teens have sex -- and then it don't work so good.

Ms. Palin's decision to place her unmarried pregnant daughter in the limelight by accepting the VP position on McOld's ticket further emphasizes her firm commitment to her family. "I'm going to make a very difficult situation that much worse for my daughter," Ms. Palin stated. "The whole world will now know that my daughter got knocked-up by a boy named after a popular brand of jeans! And since we still have the right to bear arms, the whole world is now invited to her shotgun weddin'!"

So far, however, the mainstream media is not picking up on the scandals and is certainly not questioning McUnstable's judgment...

The fact that this woman deliberately had an amniocentesis, found out her child has Downs, and then decided to have the child anyway (when 90% of women who find this out decide to abort) makes me fear this woman as either a TrueBeliever (which is very scary) or so politically motivated that she would decide to have a severely retarded child in order to further her political career (which I suspect is the case, and which scares me even more)... Can you spell right-to-life-martyr?

-John Locke


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - you make it sound like it's a GOOD thing to abort a child who happens to have Down's syndrome. Not to mention accusing Gov Palin of keeping the baby just to further her political career. Now, THAT'S scary.

10/20/2008 7:20 PM  
Blogger John Locke said...

Dear Anonymous,

My apologies. I wrote that post at a time when SarahPalinFever was sweeping the nation and I was deathly afraid that Mr. McCain -- and Ms. Palin in particular -- would be elected, leading our country back to the 19th century.

As you correctly note, my point was not that abortion of any kind is good, but that the choice is necessary. Both Ms. Palin and her daughter were allowed the choice -- and it is essential that women remain in control of their bodies. The majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose; thus, any candidate who opposes a woman's right to choose is going against the mainstream on this important issue.

Now, as for Ms. Palin herself, neither you nor I can tell what was in her head at the time she made the decision to keep her Down's baby (unless you are Ms. Palin, which I doubt). I can tell you that Down's babies, in addition to being severely learning impaired, have significant health problems and have an average lifespan in the US of only 49 years. In addition, those that do survive into their 40s and 50s have even more problems as they tend to develop a dementia not unlike Alzheimers. I can also tell you that an amniocentesis carries with it a 0.5% to 1% chance of killing the fetus, so an amnio is not something that a woman undergoes lightly, and amnios are typically not given to women under 35 for this very reason. The probability of severe genetic disorders in children goes up exponentially after age 35 -- and once the chance of having a baby with Down's (or similar genetic defects) surpasses the chance of killing the fetus due to an amnio, doctors generally recommend an amnio so that the woman can make an informed decision as to what to do. If a woman does not consider abortion to be an option, then there is no need for an amnio, and indeed having an amnio in that case would only subject the fetus to that 0.5% to 1% unnecessary risk of death.

SO, my point was this: If Sarah Palin is really anti-choice, there was no need and there really was no excuse for her to get an amnio, since who in their right mind would subject their fetus to a test that has a measurable chance of killing them? If Sarah Palin is not really anti-choice when it comes to her own personal decision, then the amnio makes a lot of sense. And in the end, she was given the CHOICE of whether or not to have the baby. The fact that she CHOSE to have the baby does not make her a hero or more morally upright than anyone who, weighing the same decision, CHOOSES to abort the fetus.

Thus, Palin can't have it both ways. Either she is hypocritical, giving herself a choice but vowing to take away the choice from other women, or she was incredibly stupid, subjecting her potentially healthy baby to an unnecessary dangerous test when she had no intention of using the test results. (Remember, this is a woman whose policy it was to force women who have been raped to pay for their own rape kits!) So, while we cannot draw any absolute conclusions regarding her motives, both possibilities lead us to unpalatable conclusions regarding Ms. Palin.

The debate as to why Republicans, as a supposedly "moral" party, generally frown on public healthcare and taking care of people who cannot take care of themselves (such as Down's babies) will remain a topic for another day.

-John Locke

11/09/2008 12:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home