Sarah Palin … Right to Life??
posted by: Angel Flinn 20 days ago
"I don’t know where to start. Since she became Alaska’s governor in 2006, Sarah Palin has committed so many crimes against Alaska’s wildlife, it’s hard to keep up—even for someone who’s lived in Alaska year-round, day in and day out, for nearly 25 years. I never imagined Alaska’s wildlife could suffer so much at the hands of an elected official. For Alaska’s wild animals, Palin’s is a reign of terror."
Marybeth Holleman – author: The Heart of the Sound: An Alaskan Paradise Found and Nearly Lost
Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke on Friday at a benefit for the anti-abortion organization Wisconsin Right to Life. Having stated publicly that she would oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest, it is well-known that Palin would accept abortion as an option only if a mother's life was in danger.
But there's another side of Palin for which she is also well-known, and it's an aspect of her philosophy which seems to be in direct contradiction to her absolutist stand on abortion. When it comes to living beings outside of the species to which she belongs, Palin is notorious for being decidedly anti-life.
Putting aside (for a moment), the enjoyment she finds in personally taking another's life, let's take a quick look at her history in regards to animal protection.
In 2008, the president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund stated that Palin "has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States – and that's a difficult distinction to achieve among our 22 Republican and 28 Democratic chief executives."
As stated in a 2008 AlterNet article,
"Palin is totally consistent in her anti-environmental stance. She not only wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, but actually vowed to sue the EPA if it dared to declare polar bears an endangered species… It's hard for most people to understand this sort of hatred for the great mammal species struggling to hang on at the edges of this continent."
Palin's most controversial stand in regard to animals has undoubtedly been her support of Alaska's aerial wolf killing. When Alaskan residents were anticipating a statewide vote to stop the aerial shooting of wolves and bears (which is notorious for the suffering it causes to its victims) Palin organized a campaign against Measure 2 and funded it with $400,000 of taxpayer money. In 2007, she offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an incentive for aerial gunners to kill more of the animals. In 2009, Palin's Board of Game approved the use of poison gas and snares to kill wolf pups and their families in and around their dens.
When Palin was chosen to be John McCain's running mate, she was introduced at the GOP convention as "the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose."
Field dress… It's a lovely euphemism. The term sounds so benign it almost conjures up images of a bucolic scene featuring a young maiden donning robes for a seasonal festival. When you shine the light of truth on the phrase, it means, quite simply, disemboweling. A specific description of what it involves would be too graphic to include here, but if anyone requires greater clarity in regards to what this 'pro-life' advocate is capable of doing to another being who was once alive and sentient, there are many places online where you can read about it exactly what it entails, and why it is necessary to preserve the flesh of a still-warm body. It's not for the faint of heart.
Killing for fun was an activity Palin was raised with. “Sarah grew up hunting… She and her daddy would wake up at 3 a.m. on school days to hunt moose,” Palin's mother is quoted as saying. The home where her parents live contains “hundreds of sets of trophy antlers and a taxidermy collection that includes a giant moose head and a full-grown mountain lion.” Photos scattered around the internet during the presidential race showed Palin posing proudly next to the bodies of her victims, and even sitting on a sofa over which was draped the skin of a grizzly bear.
I understand that the 'pro-life' position is only concerned with the rights of human beings, and in that regard, Sarah Palin is no different to the rest of the movement. It also seems important to point out that, in her disregard for the inherent value of nonhuman life, Palin is simply an extreme example of the attitude of our entire society. Yet somehow, I can't ignore the twisted irony of the 'pro-life' cause being championed by a woman who actually takes pride in her reputation as a predatory killer.
The issue of reproductive rights is a troubling one, precisely because the sanctity of all life is so deeply connected with our spiritual and ethical values. But whatever one's position on abortion might be, surely the absurdity of this match is clear. Perhaps the anti-abortion movement ought to reconsider its use of the term 'pro-life' altogether, and adopt a term that describes its values more accurately. Until that happens, it is contradictory to have as a face of their movement a woman who clearly has no regard for the sacred nature of life itself.
Marybeth Holleman – author: The Heart of the Sound: An Alaskan Paradise Found and Nearly Lost
Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke on Friday at a benefit for the anti-abortion organization Wisconsin Right to Life. Having stated publicly that she would oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest, it is well-known that Palin would accept abortion as an option only if a mother's life was in danger.
But there's another side of Palin for which she is also well-known, and it's an aspect of her philosophy which seems to be in direct contradiction to her absolutist stand on abortion. When it comes to living beings outside of the species to which she belongs, Palin is notorious for being decidedly anti-life.
Putting aside (for a moment), the enjoyment she finds in personally taking another's life, let's take a quick look at her history in regards to animal protection.
In 2008, the president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund stated that Palin "has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States – and that's a difficult distinction to achieve among our 22 Republican and 28 Democratic chief executives."
As stated in a 2008 AlterNet article,
"Palin is totally consistent in her anti-environmental stance. She not only wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, but actually vowed to sue the EPA if it dared to declare polar bears an endangered species… It's hard for most people to understand this sort of hatred for the great mammal species struggling to hang on at the edges of this continent."
Palin's most controversial stand in regard to animals has undoubtedly been her support of Alaska's aerial wolf killing. When Alaskan residents were anticipating a statewide vote to stop the aerial shooting of wolves and bears (which is notorious for the suffering it causes to its victims) Palin organized a campaign against Measure 2 and funded it with $400,000 of taxpayer money. In 2007, she offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an incentive for aerial gunners to kill more of the animals. In 2009, Palin's Board of Game approved the use of poison gas and snares to kill wolf pups and their families in and around their dens.
When Palin was chosen to be John McCain's running mate, she was introduced at the GOP convention as "the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose."
Field dress… It's a lovely euphemism. The term sounds so benign it almost conjures up images of a bucolic scene featuring a young maiden donning robes for a seasonal festival. When you shine the light of truth on the phrase, it means, quite simply, disemboweling. A specific description of what it involves would be too graphic to include here, but if anyone requires greater clarity in regards to what this 'pro-life' advocate is capable of doing to another being who was once alive and sentient, there are many places online where you can read about it exactly what it entails, and why it is necessary to preserve the flesh of a still-warm body. It's not for the faint of heart.
Killing for fun was an activity Palin was raised with. “Sarah grew up hunting… She and her daddy would wake up at 3 a.m. on school days to hunt moose,” Palin's mother is quoted as saying. The home where her parents live contains “hundreds of sets of trophy antlers and a taxidermy collection that includes a giant moose head and a full-grown mountain lion.” Photos scattered around the internet during the presidential race showed Palin posing proudly next to the bodies of her victims, and even sitting on a sofa over which was draped the skin of a grizzly bear.
I understand that the 'pro-life' position is only concerned with the rights of human beings, and in that regard, Sarah Palin is no different to the rest of the movement. It also seems important to point out that, in her disregard for the inherent value of nonhuman life, Palin is simply an extreme example of the attitude of our entire society. Yet somehow, I can't ignore the twisted irony of the 'pro-life' cause being championed by a woman who actually takes pride in her reputation as a predatory killer.
The issue of reproductive rights is a troubling one, precisely because the sanctity of all life is so deeply connected with our spiritual and ethical values. But whatever one's position on abortion might be, surely the absurdity of this match is clear. Perhaps the anti-abortion movement ought to reconsider its use of the term 'pro-life' altogether, and adopt a term that describes its values more accurately. Until that happens, it is contradictory to have as a face of their movement a woman who clearly has no regard for the sacred nature of life itself.
Read more: wolves, bears, alaska, arctic, abortion, pro-life, reproductive rights, endangered species, environment & wildlife, sarah palin, right to life
comments
Before we can really be a proponent or opponent we need to know what a specific procedure entails correct?
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
YoIt was insintuated that it was unbearable that it bothers you to think abou tit for the fact that rather than address the technical aspects of the procedure , you state it is crazy to "think about it" Before we can really be a proponent or opponant
Another of the procedures is to suck up the fetus:
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/abortionprocedures.html
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10135
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
You can whine about "chopping up" and "burning" fetuses all you want but it won't do anything, it doesn't make you sound or look sane. I'm pro-choice and I'll always be pro-choice.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
"You did not deny that fetuses are burned with saline solution or chopped up because those are the facts"
I'm waiting for you to post evidence to back that up.
"The fact that it is unbearable for you to think about the technical aspects of the procedure shows that it bothers you"
How do you know that it "bothers me"? Did "God" tell you that?
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
You did not deny that fetuses are burned with saline solution or chopped up because those are the facts- you stated however, that it was crazy to "think" about it. The bible is used as a source that cites abortion is wrong. However,The facts of what actually happens to the fetus are simply that- there is no fantasy,myth, ect.
The fact that it is unbearable for you to think about the technical aspects of the procedure shows that it bothers you-the only way to be supportive of the procedure is to deny what goes on within it.
Peace
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Pro-lifers also don't seem to care about the health of women, because they're oblivious to how dangerous childbirth really is. They take the health of the fetus over the health of the woman carrying the fetus.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
"Can you please explain when you feel that facts should and should not be used?"
Pro-lifers can't, and never, provide facts, actual scientific and logical facts, because all their facts are based on lies and propaganda. They can't provide one good logical reason to say why abortion is wrong. Pro-choicers do actual research and respect the female's right to choose, they also respect that what a woman/girl does with her body is no one else's business but her own. Pro-choicers would also rather women get abortions done by professionals in a clean sterile enviornment such as a clinic, rather than go to some dirty alley or lie on a dirty table and get a coat hanger abortion by an amateur with no medical knowledge or surgical experience whatsoever.
It's not "factual" to scream "murder" or "barbaric." It's also not "factual" to use the bible. That's the first clue that you don't know what you're talking about and it's a clear sign you haven't done any research. You can't provide any logical evidence to say that and or why abortion is wrong and or even violent. You also can't provide any evidence to back up your crap that women and girls who get abortion are forever depressed or commit suicide. You are also oblivious to the fact of how hard the choice of abortion really is, you think it's as easy as snapping your fingers. In addition to lacking information about abortion and women's health, you also lack comprehension of the definition of "personal choice."
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Sarah, I'm confused, people are crazy if they speak of facts in attempts to stop violence to ocur?> So, denial is healthy?
Its ironic considering you have asked for documentation to back up facts many times in your posts.
Can you please explain when you feel that facts should and should not be used?
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
"Likewise, with abortion and why we believe that God, who creates all life"
If God created "all life," then who created God?
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
"I would have to ask, what is it about standing on one's beliefs make that shoving religious beliefs down another's throat."
No one's forcing you to get an abortion, that's why we have "choice." Also, why do you continuously deny that God gave everyone free will? Seems hypocritical of you.
"For at least 150 years, the majority of secular/scientific society has demanded that we all take their belief of evolution as truth."
Unlike creationism, evolution is supported by scientific facts and research and logic. Creationism is a fairytale, and fairytales are creative lies meant to entertain kids, not for grown adults to pass off as reality.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1297355