Have you met my parents? They’re great LDS people, fine Christians, and, based on the imperfections of their eldest son (yours truly), utter hypocrites. At least that’s how the media would treat my Mom if she were running for office. If the poor choices of children make loving parents hypocrites, then I have to apologize for that hypocritical mother of mine.
I’ve been amazed to hear college graduates and intelligent people simply repeat the rantings of the “stone her” crowd who call a woman a hypocrite because her daughter is pregnant. Hello?
It’s one thing to call a Christian a hypocrite when they are flagrantly violating their own religion by, for example, cheating on their spouse. But to call someone a hypocrite because a child erred? I think the real issue here is that a panicking abortion industry and its cronies detest the powerful pro-life statement made by a woman who would shun abortion and instead celebrate the humanity of a handicapped child by welcoming him into her life and support a daughter in respecting the sanctity of unborn life, no matter how embarrassing and inconvenient.
Forget the ugliness of politics: it’s time for all of us to speak up for the beauty and divinity of life. The slaughter of the unborn for personal convenience must cease.
I marvel at the vulgar incivility of some members of the media, vitriolic forces steeped in partisan politics who proclaim that they are the arbiters of fairness and truth. These are troubling times. The partisanship is so blatant, a child can see it – but the educated elitists among us cannot.
Here’s the explanation: Why They Hate Her.
The partisanship is so blatant, a child can see it – but the educated elitists among us cannot. Easy fix: abort the child.
My sociology class had the exact same discussion today, and the majority consensus was that it showed strong morals to stick with your beliefs through an ordeal such as this.
Quote from the “Why They Hate Her” link:
“Palin’s family is a double-rebuke to the culture of abortion. First, there’s Palin’s decision not to kill Trig because he has Trisomy 21. Then there is seventeen-year-old Bristol Palin’s decision to not to kill her baby.
Contrast this with Barack Obama’s statement that he would keep abortion legal so that if one of his daughters were to “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This statement is freighted with meaning: Obama views out-of-wedlock pregnancy as a mistake (which is sensible); he views such a resulting baby as punishment (which is less so); and he has strong feelings that should such a situation occur, he would not want his daughter to carry the baby to term. It is, objectively speaking, a pro-abortion statement.”
amen.
I just think Sarah Palin has the Democrats scared. So they resort to name calling. Kinda like when your kid sister is mad but can’t think of a good comeback so she blurts out, “You’re ugly and your feet stink!”.
Bristol clearly realizes the importance of a stable, two-parent home in a child’s life. Comparing this young lady from the capital of Alaska to a popular movie last year about a pregnant girl who gives her baby to a single woman, I’m inclined to say that Juneau is better than “Juno.”
Sarah Palin for PRESIDENT in 2016!
I respectfully disagree with your position on this. The accusation of “Christian Hypocrisy” has nothing to do with abortion. Rather it is the result of the ‘christian right’ screaming about how sinful it was that Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant at the tender age of 16, and then turn around and support Palin when her daughter of 17 gets pregnant.
SB
Anon:
1) Can you name a single Christian rightist (so-called) who complained that way about Jaime Spears?
2) If you can, you realize that there’s a HUGE difference in how the two are approaching it? One is doing it in a respectable way…getting married and toughing it out (not what I would recommend, but still respectable) and the other seems less-than-determined to raise the child in “normal” circumstances.
to russtafarian: (thanks for your response)
In answer to your two points:
1) Yes: Bill O’Reilly for one: “….Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. …” And from a previous Bill O’Reilly quote: “….On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant ….”
2) Although there are differences in the context between the two situations they are not relevant to my comments. I was simply stating that this ‘hypocrisy’ issue has nothing to do with abortion issues but is instead about how some people ( social conservatives / fundamentalists ) will play the issue which ever way they figure will gain them the most power.
Respectfully
SB
‘”Contrast this with Barack Obama’s statement that he would keep abortion legal so that if one of his daughters were to “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This statement is freighted with meaning: Obama views out-of-wedlock pregnancy as a mistake (which is sensible); he views such a resulting baby as punishment (which is less so); and he has strong feelings that should such a situation occur, he would not want his daughter to carry the baby to term. It is, objectively speaking, a pro-abortion statement.”‘
Actually, omnitroll, Obama wasn’t talking about abortion at all in that statement. He was talking about why he favors comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only sex education. The “mistake” in question is having sex at a young age, not unwed pregnancy.
He was saying that if one of his daughters makes the mistake of too-early sex, he wants her to have enough information to avoid pregnancy and STDs. He was talking about giving them information, not about giving them abortions.
As if Obama was not 100% in the pro-abortion camp.
Obama has voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions. He has refused to take action against the monstrosity of partial birth abortion – the slaughter of a living, viable baby using the fiction that it’s not human while part of it is still inside the mother. Hellish. Ghoulish. And he’s OK with it, so committed is he to that bloody special interest.
In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter expressing concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and stating that that the “so-called” partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.
He’s certainly for “information.” He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers (got to keep that info in front of kiddies) and he voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade. Can’t leave that information out at kindergarten, can we?
Also, in 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.
But some information he’s totally against. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, and has opposed other attempts to keep parents informed about their minor children seeking the risky medical procedure of abortion in their own.
I agree with Kuri. I do not like Obama, but that quote was clearly taken out of context. Here is an article that gives the context:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/348569.aspx
Probably not the greatest choice of words; but to take that statement out of context just shows people are more concerned with partisan politics than the truth.
Anon:
Actually, the choice to marry is very relevant to your comments.
I’m suggesting that there’s a real reason that folks like O’Reilly are not condemning Palin….and it’s not necessarily a power play.it’s easy to say “This is how the Christian Right maintain power…” It’s a trope, cliche to assume that it’s all part of the power structure. After all, folks don’t actually BELIEVE this stuff, do they?
I’ve been enjoying this blog for several years now, Jeff, but you lose some class by deciding to get partisan here, especially while decrying the partisanship of others.
Partisan rant follows. 🙂
On the topic of Palin, I find it telling that the left is being painted as having no other reason at all for hating Palin at all other than that she is a wonderful Christian opponent of abortion, and that her family is not picture-perfect. This is a straw man created by the right; that’s not what the left is really talking about at all.
The reality is that the left have a plethora of reasons for disliking Palin, mostly having to do with her policies and actions as mayor and governer — yes, actual political stuff, and most of it hard to ignore. The pot shots about her family are not by any means the focus of the discussion. Rushing to the defense of Palin’s young son or teenage daughter does nothing to address Democrats’ arguments; it amounts to hand-waving to prevent anyone from noticing the serious accusations of Palin’s corruption, mismanagement and ineptitude.
Abortion is barely relevant at all. Everyone knows that the position of the left is to keep it legal, and that the position of the right is to repeal Roe vs. Wade for various reasons. And why is this such an important issue? Yes, the act of abortion is wrong. Why do people feel the need to polarize on party lines so much over this particular court decision? Why dismiss one party as worthy of your consideration because they disagree with you on this one topic? When we have so many things that need fixing in America, and offers to fix them from both parties, why in the world should people care about abortion more than anything else?
I’ve never understood this. Endless discussions on abortion distract us and cheapen the political discourse in this country, and defending Palin from a straw man that hates her only because of her family positions and decisions cheapens the actual accusations against her. Surely, here on a Mormon apologetics blog, people ought to have a great appreciation for how a straw man argument works.
(Disclaimer: My young daughter has health problems that might make it necessary for her to have multiple abortions as an adult to save her own life, and I don’t cotton to religious nutjobs like us trying to ban it. Yes, I do know that banning it can take many forms and that “life of the mother” may still be protected.)
Jeff said:
“I’ve been amazed to hear college graduates and intelligent people simply repeat the rantings of the “stone her” crowd who call a woman a hypocrite because her daughter is pregnant. Hello?”
I think the calls of hypocrite come from the Palin’s attempts to hide the pregnancy. How was that suppose to work anyway? If the Palins are truly happy to be grandparents, why try to hide it?
I live in an area of the country where teenage pregnancies are quite common. My daughter has a good friend who became pregnant at 15 and had the child. The parents never tried to cover it up or make any excuses. Life just happened. We have had the mother and child in our home many times. Very sweet kids.
If any of my daughters were to become pregnant we would deal with it in a straight forward and loving manner.
I like Palin. Her family reminds me of the fun loving good old redneck hillbilly people that I live with down here. A little rough around the edges, but with hearts of gold.
But I don’t think that she should be a heart beat away from an office that a 72 year old cancer survivor might be elected to.
matt,
I like the point you made on abortion. I’m very much against it but I think it’s so sad a man like Joe Lieberman is kept off the ticket for his views on abortion.
Joel,
Good on you for caring more about the truth than about scoring partisan points.
Gentlyhewstone,
Actually, the girl in Juno gives up her baby to an affluent, well-educated, stable, married, couple that statistically would have a much better chance of maintaining “a stable two-parent home” than do 17- and 18-year-old kids who haven’t finished high school yet.
Will!
Welcome back!
Hope you continue to have fun here.
BTW, did you check out those Feminist Mormon Housewives? Whatcha think of them?
Actually Kuri, that’s how it starts, in the end of the film, instead of finding another couple, she gives the child to a single mother.
While there is no doubt that the child will be better off financially; in the real world statistics show that the child, regardless of financial stability will grow up with many psychological disadvantages without two parents in the home.
Meaning in reality Juno would have been better off getting married to the father and raising it then giving the child to a single mother.
Now they could have just gone for the gusto and had her find another couple where both parents were ready to raise the child. And that would have probably turned out better then her and the father (i forget Mike Cera’s character name).
So actually gentlyhewnstone was dead on in her statements, even as much as I enjoyed the film. So back on topic Palin’s daughter is doing what is probably best for her child. This is especially true when you see that her parents are going to help her, and her soon to be husband raise and support the child.
Matt,
Your “partisan rant” is utter bunk. Sure there are quibbles with Palin, and responsible reporters will go after them, but that’s not what the press has been primarily focusing on. The New York Times ran three front-page stories on Bristol Palin’s pregnancy–and you with a straight face claim the abortion/pregnancy angle is a small part of the coverage? The AP photo lineup of the Wednesday night speech was 50% Bristol (including a classy close-up of her baby bump), 50% everything else including the speech itself. Any sentient human can tell they’ve been trying to make Bristol the main angle, in hopes right-wingers would condemn her for her sinful ways.
I support Sarah Palin completely and I agree with everything you’ve said. Interestingly, I bet it would be a safe bet that those attacking Sarah also think nothing of sleeping with someone just because, tossing back a few and taking someone home, have an abortion when those same actions bring a consequence of sacred portions . . . they simply cannot stand those who take the higher road even after they’ve made a mistake.
By the way, you’ve been highlighted on Mormon Bloggers Speak Out.
I’ve launched a blog called “Mormon Bloggers Speak Out” (http://mormonbloggers.blogspot.com). The purpose of this blog is to share with the world what Mormons are like in our many facets. What we believe, what we do, how we play, our thoughts on family, Church, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, life, standing for truth and righteousness, missionary work, doctrine, our countries, etc.
Each day, I, or a guest blogger, will post a blog here so that there will be something new and wonderful on a regular basis. If you are interested in being a guest blogger, please drop me an email and let me know who you are. I will also have a Hot Topics category to the right, something interesting bloggers can write about if they are stumped for the day.
I just wanted you to know that I have linked your blog to this one. Just FYI. If you’d rather not be linked, please let me know and I’ll remove it. Have a wonderful evening.
Zera,
I stand corrected, and rightfully embarrassed at having broken one of my cardinal rules: “Never talk about a movie you haven’t actually seen.”
Now all of that said…
I am worried a touch at the general situation of the Palin family. I’m not talking at all about Palin’s parental ability…I just wonder whether a family dealing with serious issues (helping to raise a grandchild, a Down’s syndrome baby, the Vice Presidency) has the wherewithal to do it all! Let me pre-empt my critics by saying that I don’t criticize Palin at all…I just know that my mother has had to deal with similar issues (out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sickly children and all at once) and I respect her dearly for it. But trying to be VP at the same time?
Yikes.
bookslinger,
I checked out the blog you asked about.
Just a bunch of unreliable women who are not following the Führer in all things.
I pity them.
Why Jeff, you seem to be insinuating that the Main Stream Media (MSM) is biased in some fashion. (/sarc)
What is telling is they were resorting to comparing B. Hussein’s qualifications to Sarah Palins! LOL
And she wins out. How sad the Dems chose a candidate that has absolutely nothing in the way of experience.
Kuri – With all due respect, b. Hussein is the only candidate ever to vote against a ‘born alive’ bill. Any decent human being can see that once the child is born alive, even if through an attempted abortion, they should get and deserve medical attention. Not to be placed on a shelf or in a trash can to die.
Your thinking is flawed and your twisting of Obama’s words is not going to take anything away from the fact he is for infanticide.
Matt wrote: Why do people feel the need to polarize on party lines so much over this particular court decision? Why dismiss one party as worthy of your consideration because they disagree with you on this one topic? My thoughts on abortion are not political. Some Democrats are very opposed to abortion, while very few Republican leaders have been genuinely pro-life. Many pro-lifers have assumed that Republican presidents would naturally appoint pro-life judges, only to be gravely disappointed. Being against abortion is not the same as being pro-Republican.
Frankly, I see very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We have moved more toward socialism and national bankruptcy under Republican leadership than we ever did under the “big spending” Democrats. Neither party is to be trusted.
To defend a woman and her family being torn apart in truly vile and dirty attacks is not to endorse the party she stands for. I am appalled at the “ends justified the means” mentality of the media today and their willingness to tear into anybody who stands for something they disagree with. It’s simply appallin’ how strong the bias and hypocrisy is. But that doesn’t mean I endorse the Republicans. Don’t mistake Palin for the man she’s asking you to vote for.
When we have so many things that need fixing in America, and offers to fix them from both parties, why in the world should people care about abortion more than anything else? When did I say that I cared about that more than anything else? It’s been one of the least discussed topics on this blog – my bad. But I would agree that losing our bearings on the sanctity of life has to be one of the most serious problems to worry about.
Whether it is convenience killings of the unborn or convenience killings of the unwanted, a state that fails to protect the innocent is not far removed from a state that begins executing its own citizens for reasons other than being an unwanted child, but for other reasons like being Jewish. Sanctity of life must be the basis of civilization. When it’s gone, look out. So yes, I think it’s fair to be concerned. And it’s unwise to mistake those concerns for partisanship.
I’ve never understood this. Endless discussions on abortion distract us and cheapen the political discourse in this country . . .
Serious question: when Jews were being slaughtered in Germany by a State that held that they weren’t fully human, would you have said that endless discussion about the right to life of Jews was a distraction from the real issues of the day, and that it cheapened political discourse? You’ll object that this is a cheap shot and unfair analogy, but is it? Think twice about that. We’re not that far removed in principle when the state condones partial birth abortion, among other things. Good grief, these are human beings. They are being killed in gruesome procedures, including partial birth abortion, when there are people anxious to adopt them and give them love. Tens of millions have been killed in this nation in unnecessary abortions. HUMAN LIFE is what’s being cheapened – who gives a dime for the political discourse you refer to? There’s nothing lower, cheaper, and baser than the political discourse we are offered by modern politicians – it’s all about how they can buy our votes and inflate their power. Both parties are worthless – but human life is not. It’s worthy of much more serious discourse.
Not that I have strong feelings on the topic, mind you.
Matt – Abortion is an important enough issue to reject a candidate.
Abortion destroys the very fabric of civilization.
But two things make it abomidable to the enth degree. The killing of a totally innocent life. And the damage it does to those women who have an abortion. It effects them in a negative way for the rest of their lives.
So it is not pro-child, pro-woman or pro-civilized society.
To quote Mother Teresa:
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love – that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. “
Jayleen, Obama’s position on the “Born Alive” bill is not quite as bad you as may have heard. Rather than being the only one to take that ultra-anti-life view, he was one of six people in Illinois who killed that bill in a committee vote, in a committee he chaired. See here for details.
It does suggest he has one of the most extreme abortion positions ever seen among politicians. In voting against the bill, he appears to have taken the position that a person someone tried to or wanted to abort but survived and was born alive should not be treated like a person, because to do so might weaken abortion rights.
Mormanity – Currently when a child is born alive after an attempted abortion they are set aside or placed on a shelf or even thrown in a trash can to alow them to simply die. That is why there was a need for a ‘born-alive’ act to begin with.
Thank you for correcting the details. I did not report them accurately, but I find it just as appalling.
Also – I don’t know if I can vote for McCain for many reasons, but the fact that he would even consider a pro-abortion VP candidate tells me he is not as Pro-life as he claims.
I am completely fed up with the two-party system and yes, the Republicans got into power and out Demmed the Dems. Both parties are full of corruption and I fear for this country.
I’m so grateful for the Peace that the Gospel of Jesus Christ brings in these troubled times.
On the other side, do we as a society have a responsibility to those mothers who choose not to have an abortion?
Do we provide free prenatal care, food stamps (to make sure the mother and baby get proper nutrition), W.I.C, a certain amount of healthcare for the babies after they are born up until the age of 18?
Just wondering what all of you think.
You guys can reduce it to “name calling” if you want to delude yourself. The facts are that a woman of undistinguished education who has a very messy Jerry Springer family, is under an ethics investigation and whose limited record in office belies the claims that she and McCain made about who she is.
The frenzy is to get information about an unknown in the effort to be informed voters. If there’s reaction to the circumstances of her life, I can’t understand why there shouldn’t be.
She is asking to be made VP of the United States and represent us all. I am embarrassed by many things in her life — her governance of that tiny town being one, her need to lie about being an opponent of earmarks and a fighter of corruption being another and the apparent lack of value she placed on education as evidenced by her undistinguished education, the fact that she married a man with no college degree, the fact that her oldest son hasn’t entered college and the fact that her second oldest is in a forced marriage with a high school drop out.
If that works for you, more power to you, but it embarrasses me more than I can say. And it frightens me that a candidate who goes into this election with recurrent melanoma presents such an unqualified surrogate to take his place in such perilous times.
You look at her and see character. I look at her and ask what are the fruits of the tree.
Are any of us so sin-free that we are worthy to cast stones?
“…your twisting of Obama’s words…”
How is it “twisting Obama’s words” to say that a statement that wasn’t about abortion wasn’t about abortion?
In the unlikely event that anyone here is actually interested in knowing what the current law is, what the bills in question were, what Obama actually did, and why he did it, here’s a summary.
(Some of this is directed at Jeff and some of it is just a general rant directed at nobody in particular. I expect to be flamed to a crisp. Be gentle.)
This is an interesting thread, and I appreciate the replies. My comments on abortion being a polarizing issue weren’t specifically directed at you, Jeff, and it’s not surprising that the topic doesn’t come up here often because the policy of the church is very clear on this topic; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it even mentioned at church, let alone debated.
I agree with you on the horror of the act of abortion itself. That it’s used callously or as a means to cover up mistakes is harmful to society, and the people that feel they have to resort to it are left damaged — the consequence of the exit they choose from a no-win situation. The practice is deplorable when it’s used to cover up our sins, or to avoid having to take care of a special-needs child.
But I do disagree that it deserves supreme consideration in our politics. If Godwin’s Law is to be invoked, I would counter with the number of Iraqi deaths that can be blamed on our actions: one-sixth of a Holocaust. There are countless other things that could demonstrate the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed “Culture of Life”: war, torture, warrantless searches and arrests, the repeal of Habeas Corpus, consolidation of power to the Executive branch, etc. Both parties have allowed this to happen, but I blame the pro-life party more than their rivals. Most people I talk to about politics don’t seem to think that any of these issues are very important, but I think that all of them “destroy the very fabric of civilization.” Most of these are blatant attacks on civilization. We should be outraged.
So for me personally, while abortion is a terrible thing, and [insert the last paragraph of the Proclamation here], it is only one of many terrible things, and I can’t find many pro-life candidates who are consistent in opposing the other things we do that I believe to be far worse. This is why I think that writing off a candidate or a party because of abortion alone is flippant: it is picking and choosing which expressions of evil and which killings we will ignore.
Now I’m not a fan of the pro-choice advocates on the left because they go too far in supporting abortion. Partial birth and late term abortions should be banned, and abortion should not be evangelized by the clinics or the schools. But I do support the position of the church that the procedure should be available in the cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s mortal peril. So I oppose the repeal of Roe vs. Wade because:
(1) I don’t trust the current pro-life movement to seek an abortion law nuanced enough to protect a woman’s right to control her own body in the above arguably-justified circumstances; the most extreme parts of the movement also seek to ban birth control. This is not an element with which we should be aligning, even if we oppose abortion.
(2) Even though banning abortions would drastically reduce the number of casual abortions, there will always be women and girls in trouble that will do anything to cover up their mistake. For these women that are going to have the procedure done anyway (as it was before Roe vs. Wade), the procedure should be safe.
(3) It’s not our business to weigh the needs vs. the wants of women seeking abortions. How much difficulty do you put a woman through in order to determine that she really was raped, and whether she was consenting or not, or how consenting? How long do you take to evaluate her? And how much further along is the pregnancy going to be when the abortion is finally allowed?
(4) Our church does not teach that life begins at conception. That argument is fundamental to the pro-life movement, but we don’t share that belief, nor does the LDS church take an activist position on abortion.
(5) Prohibition worked out so well. In other words, even though as a religious people we oppose evil, the practice is widely accepted enough that to enforce our position on others would be unrighteous dominion. A civil society must balance the rights and needs of women vs. the rights of their unborn children, and those rights are not as clear-cut as we often argue.
Banning the practice completely seems just as merciless as making it free and easy. I think both are mistakes, and I err on the side of protecting the mother. Members of my family are alive today because Roe vs. Wade made abortions safe.
So to say that because the candidates disagree on abortion that you (whoever you are) will always go with the pro-life one is to ignore other weighty matters of the law. Both tickets have serious issues: Palin herself has a multitude of flaws that should completely disqualify her for office. But none of those things will be taken into account by most of the Utah Mormons I know because they will vote along party lines no matter the views or competence or track record or integrity or honesty of the candidate. Those Democrats, they support abortion, and that’s not for me. And so Utah goes red.