I've heard her supporters say that too; her decision to have Trig proves that she is "consistent in her pro-life views". I can't believe she would actually say that in public.

On another note, I remembering hearing (from conservatives and liberals) that she wasn't against abortion if it would save the mother's life. Her supporters were trying to prove that she wasn't a complete extremist. Were they mis-stating her views or has she changed her position on that? Has she been asked about this recently?

Ummmmwhaaaaaat?

I think that's literally the most offensive thing she's publicly said throughout this election. You should carry a baby to term because you want to have a baby- to love and raise forever and ever. A child is not a friggin' political tool! So, I guess she must of been excited when she heard her son would be born with Down's. She must have said "That'll show those know-it-all liberals! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaah nyah!"

Not saying she she have aborted based on diagnosis. It wouldn't even be my place or business to say. But you don't go around creating life just to prove a point! I mean, shit, I wouldn't get pregnant just to have it aborted to prove a point either! This issue isn't a goddamn contest!

WTF!? *foams at mouth*

I think I'm going to throw up.

perhaps i'm just missing some "maternalistic characteristics" or something. i kinda don't understand why this is so awful... although palin completely sucks and i'm sure if i better understood the nuances of her statement, i'd be pissed.

so, uh, can someone reiterate to me why this is a ton more awful than any other use of post-fetal beings/children in a political campaign? i don't get it :(

Ande, the reason that people see this as such a horrible statement is because it suggests that the pro-life position is positive: one which welcomes disabled children into the world, rather than one which denies women the freedom of choice over their own bodies.

She is also suggesting that no pro-choice woman would give birth to a disabled child, as well as positioning the life of her child with Down's Syndrome as less valuable than those of her other children - the implication, as a commenter wrote on the post linked, is that she is SO pro-life that she would even give birth to a disabled child.

The other main objection to Sarah Palin's using her child as a political tool is that she is suggesting that she made the right decision in choosing to have her baby, when the whole point is that she believes that women should be denied the right to that choice.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Look at it from this perspective: a lot of people don't necessarily live up to their principles when it's difficult. It *is* difficult, in a society where 90% of children who are diagnosed with DS before birth are aborted, to instead decide to bear and raise the child.

So, she lived up to her beliefs instead of abandoning them when the going got tough. That's good, right? I know it was something I admired about her when I first heard of her. I don't think anybody's suggesting that she decided to give birth to Trig just so she could prove how "hardcore pro-life" she was. Or, I don't know, maybe they are suggesting that. (I agree that her phrasing does bring that possibility to mind, but I think that's because she's not a terribly eloquent speaker.)

So that's like pro-life street cred?

Gag.

No one's suggesting that she gave birth to Trig just to prove that she is 'walking the walk' - what is being objected to is the implication that she's unusual for not 'giving up when the going gets tough.'

She's also not considering the many reasons that a woman in her situation might have for not choosing to do what she did. I think the main point is that just because the decision was right for her, it wouldn't have been right for all women - and it shouldn't give her the right to take that choice away from others.

Pro-life street cred indeed. Eugh.

I realize that this is a not-so-reputable source, but has anyone read the new People magazine interview with Sarah Palin? She claims to not be against teaching about contraceptives.

Palin on Abstinence.

Say what? I think someone is changing her message...

Charlotte3762: perfectly articulated in ways my apparently half-baked brain can understand! thank you.

i get it now, and am sufficiently pissed the f off

I say the rule should be you can not bring up your opponents family in a policial campaign, but I say there should be a sub-rule.

The sub-rule should state that if your opponent brings up their family at all, for any reason, that makes them fair-game.

So even if a candidate uses their son, daughter, significant other, and even does so in a good light (because who would bring up their own family in a bad light while they're running for office?) then that family member is fair game for their opponent. Basically they become fair-game because the candidate used them for political gain, so the opponent should be able to counter.

So if Palin uses her son for political gain because she's pro-life, then her son is fair game and Obama/Biden should be able to counter that. If Biden uses his son for polical gain to show patriotism, then his son is fair game and McCain/Palin should be able to counter that.

None of this crap where someone can use their family for political purposes, but it's "wrong" for their opponents to use it against them.

Note: Interesting, I just caught a typo. I just realized now just how close Palin is to the word Plain.

Lots of women choose not to carry DS babies to term because they simply can't afford to raise a special needs child. It's true that Gov. Palin has other kids that she has to care for, but she's no pauper. She is a Governor with a good salary. I think her statements will offend those women who chose to abort. The implication is that they weren't tough enough or strong enough to have a DS child, that they took the easy way out. I'm sure their choice was difficult for them too. On another note, Dobson wrote a thank-you letter to her for having Trig. Ugh.

rogo88, she said that to an Alaskan radio station in 2006 as well:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,5768481.story

Of course, *McCain* can't bring himself to speak a word in favor of contraception.

From what I've read, Palin had no idea that her son had Down’s until she gave birth, and, if that's true, it makes this rhetoric even more repulsive.

They are also implying, with this "she walks the walk" crap, that all pro-choice women would choose to abort a Down’s fetus.

I get the idea of walking the walk, actually.

But if Sarah Palin were really walking the walk, she'd be anti-war and anti-death penalty.

And, even better, not someone who shoots animals for fun.

Then she might have a legitimate claim to the term "pro-life."

Just musing...

This is abhorrent for so many reasons. I can't imagine how Trig would feel if he knew how his mom spoke about him.
Most glaring is her insistence on calling attention to her "good deed," as it were.
She's basically boasting about what a fantastic Christian woman she is - something frowned upon in the bible, btw. You're not supposed to be tooting your own horn about how well you "walk the walk."
And the reason she's such a saint is because she didn't abort her son. Well congtratu-fuckin-lations, lady; you're privileged enough to be able to deal with the challenges of a special needs child. Perhaps SOME women (you know, the bad ones) choose to terminate because people like YOU are keen on slashing funding for services to the differently-abled among us. Not everyone makes six figures a year and is allowed to bring their babies to work with them.
Palin doesn't give a DAMN about children with special needs. Oh, I'm sure she loves her kid, but she's no advocate for other people with disabilities. The way she talks about Trig as though she's a martyr for giving birth to him... :puke: THAT is offensive.
And she perpetuates the myth that pro-choice women *always* abort in cases like hers. Just another way to elevate herself above us "bad" women.
Meanwhile, she characterizes her decision to continue the pregnancy as a choice even though she doesn't think she should have had the choice to begin with. I guess the legality of abortion is just such a huge temptation to anti-choice women like her; she has to congratulate herself for not giving in.

To be honest, I don't really understand what's wrong with this. Both Palin and Biden (as well as Democratic Senator Jim Webb) speak openly about the fact that they understand what it means to have a child serving in the military, since both of them have sons serving overseas. All three of them use the examples of their sons when they're talking about Iraq and other military issues. How is this different really? She's not saying anything that isn't true; she did find out that she was pregnant with a child who had Down syndrome and she did carry the pregnancy to term. So, whether you agree with her views on abortion or not, she did indeed live out her own personal views.

I just don't understand how Palin saying "I know what it is to have a child with a disability" is any different from saying, "I know what it is to adopt a child" (McCain) or "I know what it is to have a child serving in the military" (Palin/Biden) or "I know what it is to have two daughters and want a better future for them" (Obama).

To be honest, I don't really understand what's wrong with this. Both Palin and Biden (as well as Democratic Senator Jim Webb) speak openly about the fact that they understand what it means to have a child serving in the military, since both of them have sons serving overseas. All three of them use the examples of their sons when they're talking about Iraq and other military issues. How is this different really? She's not saying anything that isn't true; she did find out that she was pregnant with a child who had Down syndrome and she did carry the pregnancy to term. So, whether you agree with her views on abortion or not, she did indeed live out her own personal views.

I just don't understand how Palin saying "I know what it is to have a child with a disability" is any different from saying, "I know what it is to adopt a child" (McCain) or "I know what it is to have a child serving in the military" (Palin/Biden) or "I know what it is to have two daughters and want a better future for them" (Obama).

the implication, as a commenter wrote on the post linked, is that she is SO pro-life that she would even give birth to a disabled child.

This hits the nail on the head of the bizarritude of the statement for me. It's insulting to so many different people at once. Beyond what's already been said though, I'd like to draw out this point -- by positioning having a kid with a disability as somehow solid, incontrovertible "proof" that she "walks the walk," she's acting like having a child that you intended to conceive who happened to have medical problems is somehow on the same level as being forced to have your rapist's baby. That is just patently absurd. Also, for those who buy her drivel, it reinforces the notion that pro-choicers are appallingly selfish people just out to get the weak and helpless (e.g. have "designer babies" insofar as they abort those that get "screened out" or something), rather than engaging with the actual pro-choice issues of a woman's sovereignty over her own body. Ech.

Forreal, she's not saying "I know what it is to have a child with a disability." She's saying that, as was said, she's so pro-life she'd have a disabled kid. Yeah, Biden talks about his son when he's discussing the military. But he doesn't say "My son is in the military, which proves how pro-troops I am."

I REALLY wish people would stop praising the hell out of Sarah Palin because she chose to keep her mentally disabled child. I'm "hardcore" pro-choice, and I would undoubtedly keep a child with Down syndrome, if I'm in the right position to support a child. I can't stand the fact that people take this as a sign to mean she is a dedicated pro-lifer. It makes it seem as if they think pro-choicers wouldn't think twice before aborting an unborn baby with mental disabilities.

Meh, not the worst thing she's said in my opinion. I think most people would be shocked how many people who identify as pro-life get abortions and continue to identify as pro-life. She holds a certain moral value and when faced with it in life, she held to it. I obviously don't find abortion immoral, but I think people who do should live their life under those standards before trying to shove them on other people. I don't find being gay immoral either, but that doesn't stop me from calling out the hypocrisy of political leaders that have closeted gay sex while passing legislation that hurts gay people.

That said, obviously there are plenty of pro-choice women who have given birth to children with Down's. Being pro-choice does not mean you will abort any pregnancy that comes along or even pregnancies with problems (high-risk, birth defects, etc). She also ignores the fact that many women are not in the position to care for special needs children. Sarah Palin has a spouse to help care for her son, plenty of money, a job that allows her to keep a crib in her office, and other children who will likely care for Trig after she and her husband pass away.

She holds a certain moral value and when faced with it in life, she held to it.

But, the point is there was no moral dilemma for her. It's not like she found out the fetus could have Down's then went home and seriously thought about aborting the pregnancy. She did nothing commendable; she did nothing different from her other four pregnancies. This is bullshit of the highest order manufactured to prop up her anti-choice/pro-forced birth stance. Of course, this all assuming she knew Trig had Down’s before he was born.

Whether she knew before he was born or not, she is definitely using her baby for political gain and I find it all rather despicable regardless of who does it.

"But, the point is there was no moral dilemma for her. It's not like she found out the fetus could have Down's then went home and seriously thought about aborting the pregnancy."

That's a lot of assumptions there! How do YOU know there was no moral dilemma for her? How do YOU know that she didn't consider aborting?

Seriously, there are so many good reasons to criticize her but I don't believe that this is necessarily one - at least, not the way Jessica has framed it. I think everyone should live according to their personal beliefs and I don't think they should be castigated for talking about it. Whatever happened to "the personal is political"? Does that only apply to us or does that apply to even those we don't agree with? I mean, part of the reason I lack respect for, say, people who want to drastically reduce taxes is that they then take advantage of all the things those taxes provide for us without a single thought as to how that impacts their own political philosophy. So why would I attack a forced-birth woman for keeping her child when that is what she believes is right?

I do believe that it's awful that she makes it sound as if only forced-birth supporters would keep a Down Syndrome child. But this thread seems to be making it out to be an 'either/or' situation when it's more complex than that.

"She holds a certain moral value and when faced with it in life, she held to it."

Yay for her. Nobody's saying she shouldn't have. The problem is that from the beginning she's held up her choice, and her daughter's choice (though I'm not entirely convinced she ever said, "Bristol, honey, it's up to you whether you want to carry this child") as the right choice, and her moral value as the right moral value. If I had an abortion, I wouldn't be going against any of my moral values, but I wouldn't get to say, "I'm walking the walk!" and have everyone cheer for me.

Also, does anybody know much about Down's Syndrome? It bugs me that Palin and McCain keep going on about how she "knows what it's like" to have a special needs child, because I don't know how different an infant with Down's is from one without any medical issues. I'm tempted to say she doesn't know crap about what it's like yet (so bloody well STOP USING THE BABY FOR POLITICS), but I honestly have no idea.

That's a lot of assumptions there! How do YOU know there was no moral dilemma for her? How do YOU know that she didn't consider aborting?

I am not assuming anything, waxghost. Sarah Palin has made her views on abortion very clear. She did so long before Trig was born. If she believes what she states (and I think that Sarah Palin knows herself better than you or I), then abortion is just not an option to her - that is her stance. Ipso facto, there is no way she condisdered aborting...unless she doesn't truly believe what she says she does (now that would be assuming). That's what makes all of this so vile. She is framing carrying her pregnancy to term as some noble choice - but there was no choice (again, unless you think she is just paying lip service to her pro-life stance).

The only assuming I did was assuming she knew about the Down's before giving birth (and, I pointed out that I've read reports that she did not).

MaggieF:

Severity, phyical health problems, ect. vary from child to child . They can range from very high functioning to severe and profound. Same with health issues - heart problems (many babies with Down's are born with a hole in the heart) are very common. Depression is also common. Every child with Down's is different - so, it's hard to know from seeing him on TV.

And, no, I don't think that someone that has a 6 month old special needs baby can claim anything close to knowing what that's like for others. That takes spending time with and listening to other families with special needs children as well. I don't think she's done that.

I hate to say it, but I've yet to see any endearing photos of Trig and Sarah Palin together. The few photos I've seen of her holding him he's either asleep, so there's no interaction going on, or she's completely disinterested in him. Frankly, it seems like there's no maternal love there. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I would be thrilled to see it.