Genius Aspirant

A Woman President?

51 posts in this topic

I guess I would really like to believe Betsy -- both about what Ayn Rand said, and also about the overall wisdom of having a woman President. But part of me thinks that Ray may be right on both counts (or at least what I think Ray's position is here -- I was not clear if what he meant when he said that Miss Rand thought deeply about all things meant that he thought her views on this issue were firm and fundamental to her philosophy or not).

Just to be clear I do not think that Ayn Rand's view/thoughts on a woman President are fundamental aspects to Objectivism.

So when in response to my question you said that her "fundamentals were set," that was not responding to my question but to something else?

What do you think the fundamentals of Objectivism are?

I am baffled at how you draw so many wrong conclusions on what so many other people are stating.

Simple question -- why did YOU refer to the fundamentals of Objectivism when responding to my question about Miss Rand's views on a woman President? Either it was relevant to the topic or it was not. So, like the post above, I am posing a question, not a conclusion. If you think the question suggests or includes a wrong premise, you know what the best way is to address it? [that is a question] Answer the question and correct the incorrect premise. [that is an answer, which you might also call a conclusion]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think her husband might have disagreed with you.
Reference please?
The fact of the matter is that M.T. was all female complete with two X chromosomes per nucleus. She might have had bigger gongs than most male members of the House of Commons, but that is so only in the metaphorical sense.
The "fact of the matter" is whether or not MT was feminine, not whether she was a female. As I'm sure you know, not all women are necessarily feminine. You'll need to provide more of an argument than that to convince people here.

You need a reference for the assertion that Denis Thatcher thought his wife, Margaret, was feminine? Ruveyn actually said "I think," leaving open the possibility that it might be true. Is this really something over which you have time to devote and debate?

How do you definine feminine? You say that not all women are "necessarily" feminine. Does that mean that they mostly are -- or are sometimes or not others? [Note that this last sentence is a question, not an assertion, and not asserting that you said or did not say anything -- rather it is asking what you meant.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Thatchers had two children. Having a baby is a matter of being female. Getting the husband (or whoever) into bed to make the baby is a matter of being feminine. A man has to have a certain incentive to arise to the occasion (so to speak).

Being female is a matter of fact. Being "feminine" is a matter of opinion. There is no objective measure of "femininity", just as there is no objective standard for being beautiful. It is a matter of perception and opinion, rather than a matter of fact. That is why beauty contests are judged by people, not computers.

I'm sorry ruveyn, I misread your post. I thought you were saying Miss Rand's husband thought Margaret Thatcher was feminine. My mistake. (It was the use of the pronoun "her" which confused me, because previous we had been talking about Ayn Rand's opinion. This was my mistake, not yours. Your post was clearly written.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that does mean we can pretty safely say that Miss Rand would not vote for the Republicans this year -- which of course means she probably would not vote!

We can "safely say" no such thing on THE FORUM. As moderator, I will insist that posters do not attempt to read anyone's mind nor presume to speak for Ayn Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that does mean we can pretty safely say that Miss Rand would not vote for the Republicans this year -- which of course means she probably would not vote!

We can "safely say" no such thing on THE FORUM. As moderator, I will insist that posters do not attempt to read anyone's mind nor presume to speak for Ayn Rand.

Ok, but then it is clear that she would not vote for a woman as President. It does seem consistent with this that she would not vote for a ticket with a woman as vice President, but as far as I know we dont have a clear statement from her on that scenario. So I withdraw "safely say" and replace it with "very likely."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that does mean we can pretty safely say that Miss Rand would not vote for the Republicans this year -- which of course means she probably would not vote!

We can "safely say" no such thing on THE FORUM. As moderator, I will insist that posters do not attempt to read anyone's mind nor presume to speak for Ayn Rand.

Ok, but then it is clear that she would not vote for a woman as President. It does seem consistent with this that she would not vote for a ticket with a woman as vice President, but as far as I know we dont have a clear statement from her on that scenario. So I withdraw "safely say" and replace it with "very likely."

Not wanting to be a woman President, does not equate to not voting for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that does mean we can pretty safely say that Miss Rand would not vote for the Republicans this year -- which of course means she probably would not vote!

We can "safely say" no such thing on THE FORUM. As moderator, I will insist that posters do not attempt to read anyone's mind nor presume to speak for Ayn Rand.

Ok, but then it is clear that she would not vote for a woman as President. It does seem consistent with this that she would not vote for a ticket with a woman as vice President, but as far as I know we dont have a clear statement from her on that scenario. So I withdraw "safely say" and replace it with "very likely."

Not wanting to be a woman President, does not equate to not voting for one.

??? What is the distinction you are making? I dont have the quotation in front of me, but my recollection is that Miss Rand was talking about women, not herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no objective measure of "femininity", just as there is no objective standard for being beautiful. It is a matter of perception and opinion, rather than a matter of fact. That is why beauty contests are judged by people, not computers.

This is incorrect. If we objectiviely define beauty as a sense of harmony than we can state that there is an objective standard of beauty no matter what the object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no objective measure of "femininity", just as there is no objective standard for being beautiful. It is a matter of perception and opinion, rather than a matter of fact. That is why beauty contests are judged by people, not computers.

This is incorrect. If we objectiviely define beauty as a sense of harmony than we can state that there is an objective standard of beauty no matter what the object.

Absolutely -- bring on that objective "sense" of harmony..... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that does mean we can pretty safely say that Miss Rand would not vote for the Republicans this year -- which of course means she probably would not vote!

We can "safely say" no such thing on THE FORUM. As moderator, I will insist that posters do not attempt to read anyone's mind nor presume to speak for Ayn Rand.

Ok, but then it is clear that she would not vote for a woman as President. It does seem consistent with this that she would not vote for a ticket with a woman as vice President, but as far as I know we dont have a clear statement from her on that scenario. So I withdraw "safely say" and replace it with "very likely."

Not wanting to be a woman President, does not equate to not voting for one.

??? What is the distinction you are making? I dont have the quotation in front of me, but my recollection is that Miss Rand was talking about women, not herself.

Ayn Rand indicated that she would, as a woman, not want to be President. This doesn't mean that she would object to other women being President, or that she would not vote for a woman President. The assumption is not justified because she never said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand indicated that she would, as a woman, not want to be President. This doesn't mean that she would object to other women being President, or that she would not vote for a woman President. The assumption is not justified because she never said it.
Arnold, I believe you are mistaken. Ayn Rand said (as PhilO stated earlier):
Now consider the meaning of the Presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the President is the highest authority; he is the "Chief Executive," the "Commander-in-Chief." Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a President is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government. In the performance of his duties, a President does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work and their responsibilities).

This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the Presidency or for any important position, anyway.) To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values—a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.

(bold mine) It is my understanding that Ayn Rand did not think a rational woman would want to be president, not that a woman would be unable to do the job. I don't have the essay here, so I'm going on memory, I recall Ayn Rand saying that the only reason a woman would consider being president was if there were no men up for the job. That is - she would do it, but with the understanding that it would be torture. I believe she used Joan of Arc as an example. Now, whether or not Miss Rand would have considered Sarah Palin along those lines is anybody's guess and really not an appropriate topic for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand indicated that she would, as a woman, not want to be President. This doesn't mean that she would object to other women being President, or that she would not vote for a woman President. The assumption is not justified because she never said it.
Arnold, I believe you are mistaken. Ayn Rand said (as PhilO stated earlier):
Now consider the meaning of the Presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the President is the highest authority; he is the "Chief Executive," the "Commander-in-Chief." Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a President is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government. In the performance of his duties, a President does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work and their responsibilities).

This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the Presidency or for any important position, anyway.) To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values—a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.

(bold mine) It is my understanding that Ayn Rand did not think a rational woman would want to be president, not that a woman would be unable to do the job. I don't have the essay here, so I'm going on memory, I recall Ayn Rand saying that the only reason a woman would consider being president was if there were no men up for the job. That is - she would do it, but with the understanding that it would be torture. I believe she used Joan of Arc as an example. Now, whether or not Miss Rand would have considered Sarah Palin along those lines is anybody's guess and really not an appropriate topic for discussion.

It still says nothing about whether she would vote for a woman President, especially given bad alternatives. That she didn't approve, doesn't mean that she would object.

A 'rational' person in one area is not always rational in another. To regard a woman who is not 'rational' about her standing as a female, as indicative of her rationality in other areas of her life, is, frankly, irrational. Even a Butch lesbian can be rational at her job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand indicated that she would, as a woman, not want to be President. This doesn't mean that she would object to other women being President, or that she would not vote for a woman President. The assumption is not justified because she never said it.
Arnold, I believe you are mistaken. Ayn Rand said (as PhilO stated earlier):
Now consider the meaning of the Presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the President is the highest authority; he is the "Chief Executive," the "Commander-in-Chief." Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a President is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government. In the performance of his duties, a President does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work and their responsibilities).

This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the Presidency or for any important position, anyway.) To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values—a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.

(bold mine) It is my understanding that Ayn Rand did not think a rational woman would want to be president, not that a woman would be unable to do the job. I don't have the essay here, so I'm going on memory, I recall Ayn Rand saying that the only reason a woman would consider being president was if there were no men up for the job. That is - she would do it, but with the understanding that it would be torture. I believe she used Joan of Arc as an example. Now, whether or not Miss Rand would have considered Sarah Palin along those lines is anybody's guess and really not an appropriate topic for discussion.

It still says nothing about whether she would vote for a woman President, especially given bad alternatives. That she didn't approve, doesn't mean that she would object.

A 'rational' person in one area is not always rational in another. To regard a woman who is not 'rational' about her standing as a female, as indicative of her rationality in other areas of her life, is, frankly, irrational. Even a Butch lesbian can be rational at her job.

What is the meaning of the gratuitous reference to Butch lesbians? Do you think that lesbians, or Butch lesbians, are less capable of rationality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Palin. She is forthright and, most importantly, indicates a loyalty to values I share. In short, she comes across as the most pro American. I think she would be a great President.

Absolutely! And she is pro life! I think she is the best candidate to come along in my lifetime!

I think you and I have a different understanding of 'pro life'. Her sacrificial qualities are not what impress me. Despite these flaws, she comes across as a valuer. I hope she would not impose her anti abortion beliefs on those who believe they own their own bodies.

Well she does not see the owning of ones own bodies as a belief issue - nor life. She is committed to protecting the fundamental right to life -- and actually takes a more principled and pure stand on that issue than many others -- thus taking life seriously even in cases of incest and rape.

However, there is an enormous, and enormously important contradiction in her view of life. She is willing to violate the rights of an actual individual for the purpose of "taking seriously" [ascribing rights to] a potential individual, i.e. a fetus, which is not an independent human being with rights until it is born.

It is a vicious injustice -- 100% repulsive -- that she would, by the force of law, compound the victimization of rape victims by forcing them to offer their bodies as hosts for the spawn of their victimizers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It still says nothing about whether she would vote for a woman President, especially given bad alternatives. That she didn't approve, doesn't mean that she would object.

A 'rational' person in one area is not always rational in another. To regard a woman who is not 'rational' about her standing as a female, as indicative of her rationality in other areas of her life, is, frankly, irrational. Even a Butch lesbian can be rational at her job.

What is the meaning of the gratuitous reference to Butch lesbians? Do you think that lesbians, or Butch lesbians, are less capable of rationality?

Good grief. Quite the opposite! It was to stress that even the most unfeminine are not lacking in rationality. That being unfeminine is NOT an impediment to rationality. I can't see how you saw otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is an enormous, and enormously important contradiction in [Palin's] view of life. She is willing to violate the rights of an actual individual for the purpose of "taking seriously" [ascribing rights to] a potential individual, i.e. a fetus, which is not an independent human being with rights until it is born.

It is a vicious injustice -- 100% repulsive -- that she would, by the force of law, compound the victimization of rape victims by forcing them to offer their bodies as hosts for the spawn of their victimizers.

As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is an enormous, and enormously important contradiction in [Palin's] view of life. She is willing to violate the rights of an actual individual for the purpose of "taking seriously" [ascribing rights to] a potential individual, i.e. a fetus, which is not an independent human being with rights until it is born.

It is a vicious injustice -- 100% repulsive -- that she would, by the force of law, compound the victimization of rape victims by forcing them to offer their bodies as hosts for the spawn of their victimizers.

As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

Q: Your stand on abortion?

A: I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com's Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is an enormous, and enormously important contradiction in [Palin's] view of life. She is willing to violate the rights of an actual individual for the purpose of "taking seriously" [ascribing rights to] a potential individual, i.e. a fetus, which is not an independent human being with rights until it is born.

It is a vicious injustice -- 100% repulsive -- that she would, by the force of law, compound the victimization of rape victims by forcing them to offer their bodies as hosts for the spawn of their victimizers.

As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

Q: Your stand on abortion?

A: I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com's Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008

Just so that there can be no equivocation here: I think that the legislature should do all it can to protect citizens' individual human lives, which does not include the biological life of a fetus. Not only is a fetus not an individual, but consent is morally required of the individual who hosts its existence, until such time as it is born and becomes an individual human life in its own right.

If in saying that "the legislature should do all it can protect human life," you intend to ascribe legal rights to fetuses, that places you among those who would force rape victims by law to offer their bodies as hosts to the spawn of their victimizers, which is too repulsive an idea and action for my objective, and absolute morality.

If you want to harp on the extraordinarily rare cases (if any even exist) wherein a woman just decides for no good reason to have an abortion at a late stage of pregnancy, could find a doctor who would actually perform it, and didn't die in the process (as I understand that such operations are risky) -- I suppose that you can do that -- but to do so is context-dropping in the extreme. And even IF there were/are such cases (which I doubt, as most late-stage abortions are performed in order to save the pregnant woman's life and/or health) -- such a creature would be highly irrational, and should be morally condemned. But such hypothetical irrationality should never be used to cloud the issue of legal rights, which properly belong to individual human beings, and only to individual human beings.

Biologically and morally a late-stage fetus is getting closer to being an individual human being. But legally the line must be clear, and no rational objective law could ever enforce the violation of the rights of an individual -- in order to protect the biological life of a potential individual -- particularly when reality is examined closely, and one sees just how rare late-stage abortions are, and the reasons for which they are normally performed.

The main issue is an individual's right to consent before carrying and bearing a child, which is properly an enormous, serious, life-long responsibility that should never be forced upon any individual against her will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is an enormous, and enormously important contradiction in [Palin's] view of life. She is willing to violate the rights of an actual individual for the purpose of "taking seriously" [ascribing rights to] a potential individual, i.e. a fetus, which is not an independent human being with rights until it is born.

It is a vicious injustice -- 100% repulsive -- that she would, by the force of law, compound the victimization of rape victims by forcing them to offer their bodies as hosts for the spawn of their victimizers.

As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

Q: Your stand on abortion?

A: I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com's Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008

Just so that there can be no equivocation here: I think that the legislature should do all it can to protect citizens' individual human lives, which does not include the biological life of a fetus. Not only is a fetus not an individual, but consent is morally required of the individual who hosts its existence, until such time as it is born and becomes an individual human life in its own right.

If in saying that "the legislature should do all it can protect human life," you intend to ascribe legal rights to fetuses, that places you among those who would force rape victims by law to offer their bodies as hosts to the spawn of their victimizers, which is too repulsive an idea and action for my objective, and absolute morality.

If you want to harp on the extraordinarily rare cases (if any even exist) wherein a woman just decides for no good reason to have an abortion at a late stage of pregnancy, could find a doctor who would actually perform it, and didn't die in the process (as I understand that such operations are risky) -- I suppose that you can do that -- but to do so is context-dropping in the extreme. And even IF there were/are such cases (which I doubt, as most late-stage abortions are performed in order to save the pregnant woman's life and/or health) -- such a creature would be highly irrational, and should be morally condemned. But such hypothetical irrationality should never be used to cloud the issue of legal rights, which properly belong to individual human beings, and only to individual human beings.

Biologically and morally a late-stage fetus is getting closer to being an individual human being. But legally the line must be clear, and no rational objective law could ever enforce the violation of the rights of an individual -- in order to protect the biological life of a potential individual -- particularly when reality is examined closely, and one sees just how rare late-stage abortions are, and the reasons for which they are normally performed.

The main issue is an individual's right to consent before carrying and bearing a child, which is properly an enormous, serious, life-long responsibility that should never be forced upon any individual against her will.

Just to be clear. The answer I posted is by Sarah Palin, not me. It indicates that she would argue for legislative change.

For me, I have debated extensively the issue of abortion and why I think the life of the fetus should be protected when it is viable -- and that a woman SHOULD NOT be forced to carry a viable fetus, but she also SHOULD NOT be allowed to kill it. If it is viable, it should be taken out of the womb and, if others are willing to pay for its care, given appropriate medical care and allowed to live. If not, then it dies a natural death -- just like an elderly relative who is not put on life support. But I was admonished by Betsy on the direction this debate was taking, so will not say more here. If you are interested, you can read the numerous posts by me and others in the now closed abortion thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is an enormous, and enormously important contradiction in [Palin's] view of life. She is willing to violate the rights of an actual individual for the purpose of "taking seriously" [ascribing rights to] a potential individual, i.e. a fetus, which is not an independent human being with rights until it is born.

It is a vicious injustice -- 100% repulsive -- that she would, by the force of law, compound the victimization of rape victims by forcing them to offer their bodies as hosts for the spawn of their victimizers.

As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

I will go out on a bit of a limb here...

But in my experience of the United States, there is really no such thing as politics as a politician who believes personally against X but holds a different view politically. This concept seems to be alien to contemporary American politics.

In Canada, the situation is much different. Pierre Trudeau, a Catholic, was the Prime Minister who famously said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" and who decriminalized homosexual acts. Later, another Liberal, Jean Chretien (and more devout Catholic), supervised the revision of innumerable Canadian statutes to bring them in line with the view that common law same-sex unions be treated identically to male-female common law unions. When asked about the relation to his religion, he remarked that his religion was independent of what was the right thing to do in public politics. Other politicians voice similar views. (Although this is more true of Liberals than Conservatives.)

Here, in The Excited States, I get the sense that people view it as their God Given 'Merican right to form a democratic mob to impose their personal beliefs on others, and more: that it is really their moral imperative to do so, not just an option.

Exceptions of course exist, I'm sure. But my view is that when a political figure is asked about their view on anything, UNLESS they explicitly declare that they have distinct personal and public views, then one is entitled to assume the politician intends to implement that personal view publicly, if they possibly can.

And one egregious consequence of the vast amount of government economic and similar regulation is the huge amount of "horse trading" that goes on in legislatures, such that the moral-intervention crowd banks on lending support to the economic-intervention crowd in return for support for their own measures. If everyone didn't agree so strongly on so many economic interventions, there would be much less to trade for support for moral and intellectual interventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

Q: Your stand on abortion?

A: I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com's Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008

Just to be clear. The answer I posted is by Sarah Palin, not me. It indicates that she would argue for legislative change.

For me, I have debated extensively the issue of abortion and why I think the life of the fetus should be protected when it is viable -- and that a woman SHOULD NOT be forced to carry a viable fetus, but she also SHOULD NOT be allowed to kill it. If it is viable, it should be taken out of the womb and, if others are willing to pay for its care, given appropriate medical care and allowed to live. If not, then it dies a natural death -- just like an elderly relative who is not put on life support. But I was admonished by Betsy on the direction this debate was taking, so will not say more here. If you are interested, you can read the numerous posts by me and others in the now closed abortion thread.

Apologies. I did misunderstand due to the formatting of the quotation. And although I failed to see it, listing the source is a significant point in your favor, though a link to the source is better. Thank you for setting the record straight.

However: Direct quotes should always be properly attributed to the person quoted, and wrapped in quote tags or quotation marks -- for long quotes -- quote tags can be used if available, or the quotation should be indented, single spaced, and in block form.

The rules above should be emphasized by any teacher whose students quote other people in writing. These rules have been handed down by the Editor God, and so should be adhered to with the appropriate fear and awe, in order for the writer to avoid punishment, such as the wrist-slap, pay-dock, or firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't know that she ever advocated laws forbidding abortion.

Q: Your stand on abortion?

A: I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com's Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008

Just to be clear. The answer I posted is by Sarah Palin, not me. It indicates that she would argue for legislative change.

For me, I have debated extensively the issue of abortion and why I think the life of the fetus should be protected when it is viable -- and that a woman SHOULD NOT be forced to carry a viable fetus, but she also SHOULD NOT be allowed to kill it. If it is viable, it should be taken out of the womb and, if others are willing to pay for its care, given appropriate medical care and allowed to live. If not, then it dies a natural death -- just like an elderly relative who is not put on life support. But I was admonished by Betsy on the direction this debate was taking, so will not say more here. If you are interested, you can read the numerous posts by me and others in the now closed abortion thread.

Apologies. I did misunderstand due to the formatting of the quotation. And although I failed to see it, listing the source is a significant point in your favor, though a link to the source is better. Thank you for setting the record straight.

However: Direct quotes should always be properly attributed to the person quoted, and wrapped in quote tags or quotation marks -- for long quotes -- quote tags can be used if available, or the quotation should be indented, single spaced, and in block form.

The rules above should be emphasized by any teacher whose students quote other people in writing. These rules have been handed down by the Editor God, and so should be adhered to with the appropriate fear and awe, in order for the writer to avoid punishment, such as the wrist-slap, pay-dock, or firing.

Laughing. I like the idea of the editor god!

Apologies for not attributing the quotation. I actually got it off of a website, which I cant find now. And i pasted it in haste, so apologies for causing the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched an expert from Palin/Couric interview (you can find it on youtube). I do not think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be a president. In comparison, she makes G.W. Bush look like an intellectual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just watched an expert from Palin/Couric interview (you can find it on youtube). I do not think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be a president. In comparison, she makes G.W. Bush look like an intellectual.
I'm not sure this belongs in this thread, but could you post a link? I found this interview, which I think is the one you're talking about, but I just wanted to make sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just watched an expert from Palin/Couric interview (you can find it on youtube). I do not think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be a president. In comparison, she makes G.W. Bush look like an intellectual.
I'm not sure this belongs in this thread, but could you post a link? I found this interview, which I think is the one you're talking about, but I just wanted to make sure.

That is the interview. I have watched few different clips because some of them are edited. If you want to know specifically what sparked my comment - I think that many of her answers indicate that she has little understanding about what she is talking about but if you want to see a clear example of that look for her answers about 700 billion bailout and foreign policy. I think this will be more visible on Oct 2 (that is my prediction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites