I don''t think Palin compares to Hillary mainly because she hasn''t been in the spotlight for very long. People that want to like her can dismiss the criticisms against her more easiely. On the other hand, Hillary has a history of being a polarizing figure. I''m sure McCain would bring up how she botched universal health care the first time (which pissed off both parties). She would have definitely gotten some votes (she had/has quite the following) but I''m not sure if it would have been outweighed by those that would have wanted to vote against the Clintons (and few tend to seperate the two people). I actually do think Obama would be worst off in the polls.
Yeah, I had some questions about Obama and wanted to here from people who "know" him more than I do, so I thought I''d post it here. MW answered my question about Hillary as VP in a very civil way, and I look forward to continuing that discussion and hope that this thread goes back to good.
Yeah, it''s all very interesting...I also think that she might not have/had accepted the 2nd Banana slot. She doesn''t want to be Al Gore in 2012, after all. I don''t think McCain would''ve needed to pick Palin had Clinton been chosen, so I agree Obama could''ve very likely been worse off in the polls right now with Hillary. However, if it was Palin v. Hillary I think Hillary would''ve given Obama the edge, but then again like I said, I don''t know too much about Clinton scandal outside Bill''s term. Picking Hillary would have probably also hurt the bipartisan message Obama''s been trying to convey, though...I''m sure it was a tough decision with a lot of balancing going on.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. The Clintons know best what it must have been like for Al Gore. Lots of people thought Hillary had more power in the WH than Gore, and with her boosting about her credentials during the campaign, you had to wonder. There is no way that woman wanted to be relegated to second in command. I think she has more power and influence as a Senator. (Plus she gets to run again if Obama loses).
Seems fishy, yes, but winning an election is a word game. Semantics are key. One wrong word and you can alienate a LOT of people. Like I've said before, you have to play the game to win. He can't change anything at all if he's not elected. I give BOTH candidates some slack on flip-flopping. It's part of the game.
If you don''t care about it then I wouldn''t expect you to reply to my query made weeks ago. I wasn''t asking for a response from you specifically, I was just wondering if ANYONE on PS is "liberal" enough to think that the act was a bad idea since even NARAL and Hillary supported it. No back and forth here, just trying to get information about the issue since I *do* care that Obama doesn''t think aborted babies that survive should be given medical attention.
Absolutely, and I agree.
I didn''t assume you were the spokeswoman for all the liberals around here, so just because you think an issue is too personal (although how is this more personal than abortion I don''t know) doesn''t mean that I wouldn''t want feedback from OTHER PSers. Why you think that I would want responses from people who don''t care about an issue is beyond me. Several people have just recently joined ATW threads and I assume they are perusing this thread. I can say I have received no feedback about a topic I posted about if I please and if you don''t care about it then why respond at all? Why not just ignore it?
Thanks for the feedback, elle. I didn't mean "liberal" in a derogatory way, I just didn't know if that was the right word to describe Obama's view since I would consider NARAL more liberal than he and they support it. I see where under Roe v. Wade the decision to abort would be between the mother and doctor, but as Roe v. Wade states, once the fetus is viable the state has an interest in preserving the life of the child. I would think that once labor is induced for the purposes of abortion but something goes wrong and it is surviving independently of the mother, that the choice is no longer a medical decision for the mother but for the baby. How someone could think that that baby doesn't have the same rights as any other delivered baby is the confusion for me. Anyway, I appreciate your response, as I know I posted the question quite awhile ago and we have some newer ATW PSers and I was hoping for more input.Date: 10/3/2008 12:25:08 PM
Author: elledizzy5
I guess I'm 'liberal enough' to support his decision.
I don't think it's that Obama doesnt support that they get medical attention, I think he supports government staying out of our medical decisions, as I do. I think those decisions should be left for the mother and the doctor.
I don't like my decisions being made for me.
I absolutely see the other side of this, and expect my answer to be controversial to most.
No problem, glad to contribute. Question though... and this is not pointed, I''m actually curious.Date: 10/3/2008 12:37:18 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Thanks for the feedback, elle. I didn''t mean ''liberal'' in a derogatory way, I just didn''t know if that was the right word to describe Obama''s view since I would consider NARAL more liberal than he and they support it. I see where under Roe v. Wade the decision to abort would be between the mother and doctor, but as Roe v. Wade states, once the fetus is viable the state has an interest in preserving the life of the child. I would think that once labor is induced for the purposes of abortion but something goes wrong and it is surviving independently of the mother, that the choice is no longer a medical decision for the mother but for the baby. How someone could think that that baby doesn''t have the same rights as any other delivered baby is the confusion for me. Anyway, I appreciate your response, as I know I posted the question quite awhile ago and we have some newer ATW PSers and I was hoping for more input.Date: 10/3/2008 12:25:08 PM
Author: elledizzy5
I guess I''m ''liberal enough'' to support his decision.
I don''t think it''s that Obama doesnt support that they get medical attention, I think he supports government staying out of our medical decisions, as I do. I think those decisions should be left for the mother and the doctor.
I don''t like my decisions being made for me.
I absolutely see the other side of this, and expect my answer to be controversial to most.
ETA: I think you and I at least agree that if abortion is to truly be kept legal in its current state that something stronger than Roe v. Wade is needed. They put too much emphasis on viability in the first place; which is an arbitrary marker nowadays.
I definitely don''t assume ulterior motives for any questions you ask, so ask away! I enjoy having these discussions with interested people on the other side of the fence. I think jurisdictions have gone both ways on the no medical treatment for children for religious reasons situation, but don''t quote me on that. I seem to remember some cases where verdicts have come out on either side. I definitely see where the mother might want to forgo medical treatment for a baby she was trying to abort (not for religious reasons in this instance), but the other question comes up is if the doctor has a duty/right to treat that dying baby regardless of if the mother wants him to.
Ok I tried to do a bit of research on the topic. I''ve found that in general, parents can refuse treatment for their child. However, if the doctor feels strongly that the child will endure suffering, pain, or death, they can take legal action against the parent to require medical treatment.
I would assume it would be treated as an abandoned baby if the mother truly wants to sign over all parental rights to the state and they are put up for adoption. I read the story of the girl who was in the McCain ad - apparently her mother tried to get an instillation abortion when she was 7.5 months pregnant and as a result of it she was born with atrophy and cerebral palsy but the doctors treated her. Her parents then gave her up for adoption and she was adopted by a family who didn''t tell her she was adopted until she was 12 years old. It''s a pretty great story since she can now walk and lives a fairly normal life. I would probably guess that the biological parents still have primary rights, but they would most likely not want them if they were seeking an abortion in the first place.Date: 10/3/2008 2:16:52 PM
Author: elledizzy5
Ok I tried to do a bit of research on the topic. I''ve found that in general, parents can refuse treatment for their child. However, if the doctor feels strongly that the child will endure suffering, pain, or death, they can take legal action against the parent to require medical treatment.
So in essence, yes, your child can be forced into medical treatment. Which negates my original argument. Damn.
So now here''s a question. Once that aborted baby that lives is treated by a physician, is the baby the financial/legal responsibility of the mother? Or is that baby deemed to have been given up since she had originally planned to abort it? What if the baby has significant medical problems that significantly diminish quality of life, is the doctor still required to treat it? At what point do the decisions get returned to the birth mother, if ever?
Lots to consider here.
Date: 10/3/2008 2:28:05 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
I would assume it would be treated as an abandoned baby if the mother truly wants to sign over all parental rights to the state and they are put up for adoption. I read the story of the girl who was in the McCain ad - apparently her mother tried to get an instillation abortion when she was 7.5 months pregnant and as a result of it she was born with atrophy and cerebral palsy but the doctors treated her. Her parents then gave her up for adoption and she was adopted by a family who didn''t tell her she was adopted until she was 12 years old. It''s a pretty great story since she can now walk and lives a fairly normal life. I would probably guess that the biological parents still have primary rights, but they would most likely not want them if they were seeking an abortion in the first place.Date: 10/3/2008 2:16:52 PM
Author: elledizzy5
Ok I tried to do a bit of research on the topic. I''ve found that in general, parents can refuse treatment for their child. However, if the doctor feels strongly that the child will endure suffering, pain, or death, they can take legal action against the parent to require medical treatment.
So in essence, yes, your child can be forced into medical treatment. Which negates my original argument. Damn.
So now here''s a question. Once that aborted baby that lives is treated by a physician, is the baby the financial/legal responsibility of the mother? Or is that baby deemed to have been given up since she had originally planned to abort it? What if the baby has significant medical problems that significantly diminish quality of life, is the doctor still required to treat it? At what point do the decisions get returned to the birth mother, if ever?
Lots to consider here.
From that woman''s story I think her parents did still have their rights since they had to sign to put her up for adoption. They were young and probably couldn''t care for a healthy baby, let alone one who developed cerebral palsy from a failed abortion.
Ah, but see...I posted this in the Obama thread because it is Obama''s policy and Obama''s "illusion".
300x240.png)
