Donate to Planned Parenthood, in Sarah Palin’s Name
By Saintless. Filed in Sarah Palin, human rights, politics |
I just got this email, and I think it’s a wonderful idea!
This idea came from Letty Cotton Pogrebin.
Make a donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin’s name. A Planned Parenthood donation is tax deductible, where a political donation isn’t.And here’s the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they’ll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor. Here’s the link to the Planned Parenthood website:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ go to donate, then to honorary gifts.You’ll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the “in Sarah Palin’s honor” card.
Governor Sarah Palin
Alaska State Capital Building, 3rd floor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau AK 99811-0001.The fax # is 907 465.3532.
Friday, September 19th 2008 at 11:44 am |
AWESOME!!!! I Love it!
Friday, September 19th 2008 at 12:48 pm |
suh-weet! i’m on it!
Monday, September 22nd 2008 at 2:18 pm |
A wonderful idea? Really? I mean really?
More like distasteful.
So much for the high road, Misty! It is confounding to me, that you are now promoting institutions that enable murder for completely innocent babies and this has become a fun past time for you. Now, I realize that people wish to have the “right” to kill their own unborn. But now, over all the issues that you could validly differ from this Palin, you choose to make fun of her choice. And in a very sick way, I might add. So she thinks it is wrong to kill babies!? Who is most likely on the wrong side on this issue? Remember that having a right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it.
Do not forget the the founder of Planned Parenthood wished to weed out Blacks, Catholics, Jews and the unfit from society (are you suggesting that Palins baby is unfit for life?). How does this possibly align with the democratic party and their ideals on human rights? If you really wish to have a future in politics, never forget that this kind of crap can come back and haunt you some day.
Still your friend.
Monday, September 22nd 2008 at 3:02 pm |
Charles,
I would never suggest that any baby is unfit for life, and I’m not sure why you would say that of me. The pro-life vs pro-choice debate gets so emotionally heated on it’s own, and when you make such an accusation, it pretty much makes me want to end the conversation. But, knowing you as I do, and respecting your opinion as much as I do, I’ll try to ignore that.
As far as wanting to make fun of Palin’s choice…no, I’d like to raise awareness that Palin’s choice (abstinence-only education) doesn’t work. While I think it is fine for a parent, or a religious organization, to teach the concept of abstinence-only, I think it’s highly irresponsible for anyone in a position of authority over children to hide basic sex education from them. Because, as fallible as humans are, those kids are going to wind up teenagers, and some of them are going to end up having sex. And they’re going to think that the rumors from their friends at school, like not being able to get pregnant the first time they have sex, or if they do it while on their periods, and then they’re going to get pregnant. If they’d been taught the realities of sex, and the consequences, and the responsibilities, it’s likely that many of those kids would then delay. Whether they make it to marriage, or not, is probably another story. But education and information is not a threat to abstinence, and I can really only see it as a support, for those families who talk to their kids about it.
Regardless, Planned Parenthood does a host of other things, and while you and I probably won’t ever agree on the merits of those things, I support them mostly because they’re the only ones (as in major organization) out there offering information. And whatever Margaret Sanger’s goals may have been, Planned Parenthood today has no sort of negative eugenics goals, and to say they do is pretty silly.
Additionally, the United States Government is not, and should not be, a theocracy. The idea of separation of church and state is good for both the church and the state.
I’m not sure if you read my blog regarding Palin and the issue of rape, but if not, it’s here, and I think it’s highly relevant to why I would post the above blog:
http://saintless.com/2008/09/16/palin-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-issue-of-rape-repeatedly/
I’ve said this many times… But, I don’t believe that abortion is ok. I never did, even during the 10 or so years I spent as an agnostic. But, much like other things that we humans can do wrong, I think this one’s between me and God. The one thing I wish anyone who wants an outright ban on abortions would read is this:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/08/in-support-of-choice/
I can’t even imagine how heartless someone would have to be to tell that woman that her abortion was wrong, or who would want to make it so that in order for her to have one, she’d have to go jump through legal hoops and share her story with strangers. It’s not my business, or the US government’s, to have any say in this matter for her.
And for those wishing to end abortions, I think that not supporting the Democrat’s plan to reduce them by 95% in 10 years is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
http://democratsforlife.org/documents_etc/95_10brochure.pdf
The problem is, conservative moral values conflict with conservative fiscal values. Because supporting women who do “make the choice” to have a baby is seen as a bad thing to fiscal conservatives. Get rid of the reasons women have abortions, and there will be far fewer of them. And that includes pro-actively supporting women who do have babies, with government services.
And I don’t wish to have a future in politics. It’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever run for office. Maybe someday I’ll get someone to hire me to write software for some political objective, but that’s as close as I’m likely to get. I just like to write, and post interesting things on my blog.
Monday, September 22nd 2008 at 3:54 pm |
Copper1
She’s saying that Palin isn’t fit to be the V.P.
The “right” to kill? It is so much deeper than that. Planned Parenthood is so much deeper than that. Edify yourself. It’s, dare I say, liberating. Climb off your high horse and look for the message. WHY would Misty think, say or type something like she did.
You care about the unborn? Super, then look at the astronomical rise in abortions since conservative chuckleheads began abstinence only sex-ed.
Oops.
And, also, apologies to the overly religious here; history has shown that ignorance is not a responsible way to guide the masses. The iron fist of the Inquisition CAN NOT have authority in the world anymore. There seems to be a mental-click with religious conservatives that “Just Say No” is enough for people.
It isn’t, and it hasn’t been, in centuries.
For example:
Planned Parenthood hands out rubbers; rubbers prevent pregnancy; prevented pregnancy ALSO prevents abortions.
2+2 = 4, no matter what the clergy, the government or the evangelical factions believe.
Monday, September 22nd 2008 at 7:50 pm |
Misty,
I happily retract my earlier statement. Whooo!
Admittedly the post “seemed” to be referring to Palins right to life stance or more likely referring to her baby. This is what a number of people I heard from thought, seriously. Makes more sense now to see that you were referring to the abstinence programs. It was hard not to to assume that the post had even more of a negative tone than it did. It is just that it was listed under your topic of human rights, and I thought “right to food, shelter, life” not basic human right of planned parenthood sex ed programs. Har d har.
Thanks to the glory of the internet & Al Franken(ha ha) and all this Palin business, it is hard not to see everywhere people focusing on Palins baby, whos it is, should she have kept “it” or be at home with the baby. Then I go to read a few of the local democratic blogs to see “hows things”, I see a post saying “Donate to Planned Parenthood, in Sarah Palin’s Name”. And the obvious happens. Of course it has been a few years since we conversed officially, and much can change in that time.
So I officially apologize for assuming the worst of you. Shame on me.
And for the record, so that Jeff B. can stop foaming at the mouth about iron fists…
I would agree that we should not have a theocracy. Conservatives and Liberals be damned (not biblically of course), they are often wrong on both sides of the fence (inquisition told me so, as I hide in a corner clinging to my gun and religion :). Kudos to Misty for her pdf link on reducing abortions, it seems good and we need to keep working at the problems. Still, I think it is wrong to kill babies not matter what (sadly, I know from experience.. I came from the dark side), Jeff.
Playing devils advocate…. – Jeff in head responds…. “only Sith deal in absolutes, Charles”.
Har d har, I think you will rather enjoy that… JM
Charles
Wednesday, April 8th 2009 at 5:14 pm |
You should put a couple of more ads on your site as you could in all likelihood make a good deal of money. This is great writing.
Monday, November 16th 2009 at 2:09 pm |
Either you pro-choice people are agnostics, athiests, both or just don’t fear God. I don’t know which. If you believe in God, He made up the Commandments and He said Thou Thalt Not Kill! He Did Not EVER SAY EXCEPT FOR….. God is the creator of life and He is the only one that should take it away PERIOD! Apparently, you have never seen the ultrasounds on the uterus during an abortion and seeing the baby frantically pulling away fighting for his/he life away from the suction machine!!! If they would show this to the mothers preparing for their abortions, if they had any heart at all, they would not go through with it. Obama is so concerned with those poor terrorists being waterboarded; yet, he doesn’t give it a thought, nor do you, as to the excrutiating pain the infants go through when their little limbs are being torn apart through the process of an abortion. How mindless! How absolutely horrible! What a terrible, terrible, selfish thing to do to yourself and your baby. What sort of excuse will you give on judgment day? Be prepared – you will be judged – you will not excape what you have done – the suffering you have caused. Will it be worth it? This is real folks – you will stand before Christ – face-to-face so be prepared. What will you say to Him? And to make things worse, some of you are making it worse my making fun of Mrs. Paling because he did not abort her precious mentally challenged child! What a pathetic bunch are you!
Monday, November 16th 2009 at 2:32 pm |
Poor Gracie. Such anger is unbecoming. My post had nothing to do with Palin’s child. It was about how abstinence only sex education doesn’t work – and Palin’s unwed daughter becoming a mother exemplified that.
And if I was talking about abortion, then – as Rabbi Arthur Waskow points out:
“The Torah’s only comment on abortion – which makes utterly clear that it it is not murder. (In Exodus 21:22-23 we read that if someone causes an abortion but does no other harm to the mother, the agent owes a monetary recompense to the father for the loss of his potential offspring. If the mother is killed, however, a full human life has been killed. The one is murder; the other is not. Rabbinic teaching goes further to say that if the continued bearing of a fetus threatens a pregnant woman’s life, the community is OBLIGATED (not merely permitted) to kill the fetus in order to save the woman.)”
Exodus there says:
“When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,”
I can only hope for you that your misguided anger might be redirected toward something more productive, such as clothing the homeless or feeding the poor, and that the hatred and negativity might somehow be drained from you, allowing for the peace, hope and forgiveness of Christ to take its place.
Wednesday, November 18th 2009 at 10:14 am |
Since you didn’t post your name this is for the person that called me Poor Gracie! And for your information, I don’t have any hatred for you or any human being. Just disgust for killing the helpless among us. Also, I do quite a bit of charitible work, not that it is any of your business. I’ve volunteered my time at numerous Catholic organizations over the years, as well as given monetary assistance to many organizations to help the poor! You may find below information helpful in discerning your earlier comments! I’m assuming that is where you picked up your incorrect information (or just didn’t read it all or chose to leave it out, don’t know which).
Does Exodus 21 Sanction Abortion?
By WAYNE JACKSON
April 6, 2004
Bookmark and Share “Some Bible teachers say that Exodus 21:22-23 implies that the life of a fetus is not in the same qualitative category as that of its pregnant mother. Would you comment on this?”
This is a common rationalization of those who seek some biblical justification for the practice of abortion. It is a theory without merit. The passage in the book of Exodus reads as follows.
“And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her
fruit [children] come out, and yet no harm follows; the one who hit her shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose upon him; and he shall pay a fine as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .”
The argument runs something like this. If two men are fighting, and the
struggle injures a pregnant woman (who perhaps intervenes in an attempt to stop the dispute), so that she miscarries, a monetary fine may be imposed to compensate for the death of the fetus. This infraction, however, was not viewed as a capital case. It is then contended that the implication must be that the fetus was not a human being with rights comparable to an adult person.
This theory was presented a while back by Jewish “rabbi” Shira Stern, daughter of violinist Isaac Stern, as representative of the modern Jewish view (cited by Don Feder, “Abortion, Judaism, and Jews,” National Review, July 8, 1991, p. 50). The position is false, for it is based upon a misunderstanding of what the text actually says.
We must observe, though, that some translations have given credence to
this erroneous viewpoint by rendering the word “depart” as miscarriage. The Revised Standard Version reads: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage . . .” (cf. NASB). The liberal
commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1952), as well as other commentaries, also accommodate this view.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that a dead fetus is under consideration in this passage. The fact is, the Hebrew language has a term (shachol) that denotes an abortion, or miscarriage (see 2 Kgs. 2:21; Hos. 9:14), yet that word is not employed in this context. This passage deals with a premature birth, not an aborted fetus.
The Hebrew word rendered “depart” is yasa, basically meaning “to go (come) out.” Though the word has a wide variety of uses in the Old Testament, it is frequently employed of an ordinary birth. God told Jeremiah, ” . . .before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you . . .” (Jer. 1:5). In Exodus 21:22 the verb is used “of untimely birth” (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423), or of “premature birth” (cf. NIV; NKJV).
Noted Hebrew scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. has observed that it is a “gross error,” either by translation or by means of commentary, to argue that a miscarriage is suggested in this passage (Toward Old Testament Ethics, Zondervan, 1983, p. 170).
In an excellent article which discusses this passage at length, Jack W. Cottrell, a professor of theology at the Cincinnati Bible Seminary, declared: “There is absolutely no linguistic justification for translating verse 22 to refer to a miscarriage” (Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, p. 8).
A second factor to be given consideration in this text is the use of the
word “fruit.” The term derives from the Hebrew yeled, which is a “child.” In this instance the word is plural, “children,” which likely is calculated to cover multiple births, or perhaps both sexes. In Genesis 21:8, Moses wrote regarding Isaac: “And the child grew, and was weaned . . .” Is there any question but that Isaac was an actual person at this time? Dr. Kaiser thus notes: “The use of the term ‘child’ makes it clear that a human being is in view here” (op. cit).
What, then, is the passage teaching? Simply this. If two fighting men injure a pregnant woman, causing her to give premature birth, yet no harm
follows – to either mother or child – a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness. However, if any harm followed, to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out commensurate with degree of damage. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.
We must, therefore, protest the use of Exodus 21:22-23 as a “proof-text”
for the support of abortion. Alan Cole observed: “It has sometimes been claimed by those in favor of abortion that the unborn child is not really considered as an individual here: but that is not the point of this passage . . .The destruction of the unborn child was regarded by the Hebrews as an instance of the most barbarous cruelty, calling down God’s judgment (2 Kings 15:16)” (“Exodus,” Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Inter-Varsity, 1985, p. 169).
Again, as professor John Hannah observed: ” . . .the unborn fetus is viewed in this passage as just as much a human being as its mother; the abortion of a fetus was considered murder” (“Exodus,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Victor, 1985, p. 141).
Of the wicked Menahem, who became king of Israel, an inspired Old
Testament writer states that he “ripped up” women that were with child (2 Kgs. 15:16), an act which God abhorred (cf. Am. 1:13). Today, abortion clinics are performing the same savage deeds. Surely a time of reckoning will come.
Bookmark and Share Please feel free to submit your comments on this article using the form below. All fields are required. Your email address will never be published.
Your Name:
Your Email:
City, State:
or City, Country
Your Comments:
Back © 1997-2009 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235. Website version: 2.0.0a
The Christian Courier is a journal dedicated to the study of religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and biblical ethics. It is associated with the churches of Christ.
Wednesday, November 18th 2009 at 10:28 am |
Gracie, I’m the author of the blog. See, it says my “name” is Saintless – that’s all just automagically filled out for me, and if you click it, you go to the main page of the blog. My name is Misty, if you were wondering.
Anyway, I won’t get into more of this arguing back and forth. Having been raised a Jehovah’s Witness, I am quite well aware of how any scripture can be turned around to make it say whatever you want. And again, this blog post was NOT about abortion – rather, it was about educating our children about sex, and how abstinence only education is a crock of shit.
Wednesday, November 18th 2009 at 1:04 pm |
I figured you would turn it around and interpret it to your advantage and your way of thinking. IMHO, abstinance is not what you refer to it as! If more people had more self-control, we would’t have all the diseases running rampant as we do today, aids, etc. That’s a cop-out and you know it – just an excuse because no one has any self-control! I’m an old woman now, but when I was younger, I some how managed to use se;f control, as did my fiance, and not have sex until we were married. That was the way we were brought up. I wouldn’t have hurt my parents or disgraced them by getting pregnant before I got married. I knew it was wrong and he was broought up with the same values. Now days, children just don’t have the respect for their parents or themselves as they did when I was growing up. They don’t care who they hurt in the process, as long as they do what they want and get what they want. So sad Have a nice day. Gracie
Wednesday, November 18th 2009 at 1:56 pm |
Oh, Gracie. All religious discussions are about turning things around and interpreting them to each person’s way of thinking. That’s just how this works. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be multiple religions like there are, even just considering the Christian tradition.
Abstinence (in this context) is not having sex. Or at least that’s what I mean. Feel free to correct me, if I’ve got the subject wrong.
Things in your day were no different when it comes to self-control. Sexual feelings are inherent in our nature. That hasn’t changed in thousands of years, regardless of whether you look to the bible or to science for information.
The conservative religious viewpoint that children should be told “don’t have sex”, and not given the rest of the information, is equal to blaming those kids when they get sick or pregnant from having unsafe sex. And it also doesn’t teach them respect for themselves or their bodies. I’m fine with giving kids all of the information, and teaching them that abstinence is the best choice. But teaching them that abstinence is the only choice, and giving off ideas that sex is wrong and bad? No. That leads them into feeling guilt because they get a hard on, and then when they already feel guilty, what’s the difference if they go ahead and try it?
Guilt is not a Christian value, as I learned so very long ago. Responsibility is. And I’m so glad that my kids are learning the responsible way, and not the guilty way.
Thursday, November 19th 2009 at 11:56 am |
Well then, since Sarah’s child exercised her free will that God has given each of us and chose to ignore her mother’s advice of abstinance, go ahead and taunt Sarah and make her feel better. As Jesus said, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Go ahead, righteous one, throw the first stone – make yourself fell better. I, myself am a sinner, and I wouldn’t dare! But apparently you are perfect. So throw away. Gracie.
Thursday, November 19th 2009 at 11:58 am |
Hi, pot. I’m kettle.