«
»

John Mccain and Sarah Palin hate women, Rachel Maddow comments


We all know John McCain and Sarah Palin are out of touch on women’s health; between McCain’s infamous air-quoting of the word “health” and Palin’s countless contradictions on reproductive health care, we know that we would be in bad shape if they were to make it to the White House. That is no big news. But what Sarah Palin told the American public last week was a stark confirmation of where they stand. During an interview that Focus on the Family founder and anti-choice leader James Dobson …

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on July 4, 2009, 7:00 am and is filed under Wellness. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  1. #1 by xdir on February 16, 2009 - 8:00 am

    Personally I would say at the foetus stage, at 2 months into the pregnancy.

  2. #2 by trippendale742 on February 16, 2009 - 8:41 am

    i changed my views now. and why did you reply to a 2 month old comment?

  3. #3 by sparklygoldfish on February 20, 2009 - 4:42 am

    But then why in some states is it considered double homicide to murder a pregnant woman, no matter what stage of pregnancy she’s in? That’s an issue that’s always confused me.

  4. #4 by Boobalopbop on February 20, 2009 - 4:57 am

    If someone needs to do that for comfort, fine. They are mourning the life that almost happened. Most people don’t do that. If someone feels the need to do that… Fine, I would imagine, they need all the comfort and support they could find… But you don’t read obituaries about miscarried babies, because they never existed.

  5. #5 by ffliz217 on February 26, 2009 - 12:48 pm

    I’m so sick of the abortion argument. It’s a no win argument. Yes women need to have the freedom to decide what happens to their bodies. Having a baby can change a woman’s body forever. Yes the fathers of the babies should have equal say in what happens to the baby but that contradicts the woman’s right over her own body. Yes foetuses of a certain age are just small babies with consciousness and deserve life, but that contradicts both the rights of the mother and father. Somebody always loses.

  6. #6 by ffliz217 on February 26, 2009 - 12:53 pm

    What i don’t understand is why the republican party was against the move to have the “morning after” pill available over the counter. The morning after pill takes care of the problem either before firtilisation even occurs or when the “baby” is only a small bunch of cells clustered together (and not a baby).

    I just wish people would take contraception more seriously. I know too many women my age (20) who have gotten pregnant because they “decided to risk it just that once”. It’s so stupid.

  7. #7 by SexyPinkLipstick on March 7, 2009 - 12:31 am

    Sarah Palin hates women when she is one? stupid idiot, talk about self hatred!!!!!!!!!!

    John McCain is a faggot

  8. #8 by jp40798 on March 12, 2009 - 1:53 pm

    I don’t like John McCain either, but please don’t call anyone a faggot. You sound like Ann Coulter

  9. #9 by westman67 on March 13, 2009 - 12:40 am

    Science has proven that life begins at conception. The AMA (American Medical Association) made that statement, too. An unborn baby has a heartbeat, dreams, sucks his/her thumb, responds to environmental stimuli, has a separate blood flow from the mother. It never existed? You are so misled. You think once a “nonexistent’ baby travels through the birth canal it’s…..POOF…..a life? Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat? It was a life before, too. (the rabbit was there before, too)

  10. #10 by burningeko on March 15, 2009 - 10:27 am

    because they have some stone age notion that abstinence is the best policy due to their christian values. when it turns out that abstinence programs make for more unwanted pregnancies than contraception.
    its all about control

  11. #11 by ffliz217 on March 15, 2009 - 10:54 am

    … there’s a big stretch between life beginning at conception and life beginning in the womb.
    Do you really think that science has proven a zygote has dreams? It’s just a bunch of cells. Think about it properly before you write about it. I agree with most of what you’re saying, but you’ve got the story mixed up. There’s a difference between a zygote, an embryo and a foetus.

  12. #12 by ffliz217 on March 16, 2009 - 6:04 am

    Theres a big difference between a newborn, an elementary school student and a senior citizen Yeah, no shit. Their age is obviously the difference. The similarity is that they all have consciousness and a brain.
    My argument was not weak and unfounded you fucking tool. I was pretty much agreeing with you. You just got your facts wrong and I was correcting you. Science has not proven that life begins at conception, only that a foetus has consciousness.

  13. #13 by ffliz217 on March 16, 2009 - 6:05 am

    . Obviously you dont know the first thing about biology, so Ill fill you in. A zygote is just a tiny cluster of undifferentiated cells and cannot dream because it is not an organism and it certainly doesnt have a brain. An embryo is, for the most part, just a clump of differentiated tissues, and does not dream because it doesnt have a developed brain and science doesnt even know if they have consciousness or not, but the cerebral cortex is not developed until it is a foetus.

  14. #14 by ffliz217 on March 16, 2009 - 6:06 am

    FOETUSES do dream, because their brains are developed and they have consciousness so, clearly, there is a RELEVANT difference between a foetus and an embryo and zygote. Using a newborn, a kid and an old person as a comparison was irrelevant and just made you look like a smartarse.
    There has been absolutely no proof that life begins at conception. You are an ignorant arse and obviously dont understand what youre talking about, let alone what I was saying in my comment.

  15. #15 by ffliz217 on March 16, 2009 - 6:07 am

    You can have your own opinion, but you cant have your own facts, so dont go making shit up to support your moral standing.
    Poor thing? You should try actually reading and comprehending what people say before you turn into an arrogant prick and make at fool out of yourself.
    And i make no appologies for how rude this is. If you want to be a condescending wanker then you’re going to have to deal with the consequences.

    Get my point now moron? Keep your crap off my profile page.

  16. #16 by Markohoppis on March 27, 2009 - 5:20 pm

    I hate women and I beleive in abortion. Why in the hell would I want a worthless cunt’s kids taking up my space, food, and money? Abortion will weed a lot of these cruel whores out of existence. Besides that, I have my cake and eat it too, if the cunt gets pregnant, she can just get an abortion and I don’t have to pay child support.

  17. #17 by cocobear33 on April 15, 2009 - 4:57 am

    these morons hate anyone who is against abortion , they have no problem with a baby’s brain being sucked out , or a baby being aborted up to 9 months , they mask there stupidity under the phrase womens health but lets call it what it is murder and by the way the majority of doctors in this country are against abortion jezz i wonder why

  18. #18 by kdurston1 on May 21, 2009 - 8:24 pm

    Wow this is the most impartial coverage i’ve ever seen. so balanced. both sides where represented fairly and ethically. I can’t figure out why the American public are turning to independent Internet media for their news

  19. #19 by GDogSamurai on June 4, 2009 - 3:47 pm

    Pat Buchanan is a total and complete asshole.

  20. #20 by xlanciferionx on June 4, 2009 - 7:29 pm

    I believe all that could be said about McCain’s argument was best said at 00:43-00:44.

  21. #21 by purplefuzzythings on June 5, 2009 - 3:46 am

    want a balance? watch both MSNBC and Fox News.

  22. #22 by kdurston1 on June 5, 2009 - 5:03 am

    you’ve missed the point. journalism is supposed to be unbiased. if it is not, then it is a special interest organ like Iskra and Provda in the USSR. it can still be technically called news, but we know it is nothing more than a propaganda device for the special interest group. i’m not supporting Fox news either as it suffers from the same defects. we shouldn’t have to watch two separate channels to get reasonable, and fair, representation of the issues.

  23. #23 by purplefuzzythings on June 5, 2009 - 5:17 am

    Oh, shouldn’t this and shouldn’t that. Stop being so indignant.
    We are greedy and cruel by nature, and people like Rupert Murdoch are always going to mess up your “no bias” idealism no matter what. Besides, it’s just human nature to be partially biased to some extent.
    Yes, the world sucks. Yes you should have all the news. But it ain’t gonna happen. Remember when Bush was stovepiping information to the NY Times? Everyone believed that info. You will never get the whole story.

  24. #24 by kdurston1 on June 5, 2009 - 5:42 am

    I agree we will never get the whole story, Because of views like yours. the press is to challenge and question the authorities, whether Political, religious or economic. but instead we get this from the main stream media. And it is possible to give fair coverage. i do it all the time. in fact i present views i detest as strongly as i can so i might understand them better. I’m Canadian, watch CBC News & see what i’m talking about. It’s far more balanced than US. We never see diatribes like this.

  25. #25 by tube2a on June 5, 2009 - 9:04 pm

    Wow, can you say quote mining? Typical media bull shit tactics.

Comments are closed.