Thursday, September 04, 2008

Governor Sara Palin did a super job with her speech last night. She is young and energetic, a good orator, and the crowd was well primed and coached, as was Gov. Palin, both ready for her national debut.

But I wonder:

Why does she denigrate the thousands of people out there who work day in, day out through church and civic organizations to help people and to make this world a better place? She could have been referring to Mother Theresa in this quote: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities”

Now I agree that Sara Palin does more than talk the talk, she walks the walk too. I admire her for this. I know many folks in similar circumstances who walk the walk. We don’t give them enough support. But what concerns me is her profound disregard for science and common sense. Evolutionarily speaking women did not have babies at 44 years old very often. This profoundly biological process is likely affected by the degradation of both the male and female reproductive ability with age.

To the best of our ability we need to make good choices, and I am not referring to abortion. Palin has a pregnant 17-year-old daughter and a Downs Syndrome baby. This is not just because she opposes abortion. She shows a blithe disregard for science and common sense. Sexual reproduction is not a magical event. Now, of course, I regard my four children and four grandchildren as magic, but lets get real.

Palin opposes sex education programs that include any information other than teach abstinence. This view is contrary to all evidence and common sense as to what works to reduce the occurrence of teenaged pregnancy and, just as important, the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence is only part of a good program. Common sense and science clearly point to the necessity of good information about the biology of sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception.

I suppose the next thing in Palin’s way of thinking is to dump biology class, replace it with creationism, and burn all the books we don’t like. Then we will produce a generation of illiterates. Sound a little 1984ish? Or maybe 1560ish? Maybe 1938ish? Barack Obama may not have extensive experience but he is less of an ideologue and more of a pragmatist and he has demonstrated prudence in selecting Joe Biden. Even if you don’t like Biden you have to concede that there is wisdom in the choice. We now have an idea of how John McCain would go about making important decisions. On a whim.

I see I am not the only one to recognize Palin's disparagement of community organizing. Check out this NCR article.

10 comments:

The Deuce said...

I suppose the next thing in Palin’s way of thinking is to dump biology class, replace it with creationism, and burn all the books we don’t like. Then we will produce a generation of illiterates. Sound a little 1984ish? Or maybe 1560ish? Maybe 1938ish?

I was thinking delusionalish, or maybe paranoidish.

The Deuce said...

Evolutionarily speaking women did not have babies at 44 years old very often. This profoundly biological process is likely affected by the degradation of both the male and female reproductive ability with age.

Palin has a... Downs Syndrome baby. This is not just because she opposes abortion. She shows a blithe disregard for science and common sense.


So, you're suggesting that it's Sarah Palin's fault her baby has Downs Syndrome, because (you think) she was unaware that it is statistically more likely for Downs to occur in pregnancies at a later age?

So, tell me, what are you suggesting her "sin" was here? That she didn't stop having sex with her husband after, say, 35? Or that she didn't use contraception? Or, if she did use contraception (keeping in mind that she's not Catholic), but it failed, are you suggesting she was wrong for not having an abortion?

I just love that, after conjuring up all sorts of monstrous and bigoted views (like "kill them infidel Arabs" and "burn all the bad books", etc), based on no evidence, and attributing them to her, you turn around and yourself express something just as perverse ("It's her own damn fault her baby has Downs Syndrome!") as the imaginary garbage you accused her of espousing.

Oh, and I'm sure that Bristol got pregnant because she wasn't up on the latest, cutting-edge scientific discoveries, such as "sex makes babies". Since her mom is a cre-a-shu-nist, she no doubt thought that babies are delivered by storks, and has never heard of rubbers. That's why the teen pregnancy rate is so much higher among Christian private schools and homeschools, where they don't teach this stuff, than in public schools where they do. Oh, wait, it's not.

Jillian said...

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (which, as I'm sure you know, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), 60% of women obtaining abortions cite a failure of contraception as the reason for their abortions. Not a lack of contraception, not inability to obtain contraception, but *failure* of contraception.

CMinor said...

So...uh..Jim,
On what research do you base your assertion that "evolutionarily" women over 35 shouldn't be conceiving?

Female fertility depends in part on maternal age, but also on individual biology, nutrition, and a number of environmental factors. Women have conceived and borne children after 35 for at least as long as we have records, though at a lower rate than they have at, say, 20.

Anyway, there are plenty of healthy babies born to women in their 40's, and 80% of Down's Syndrome kids have mothers under the age of 35.

Jim said...

Biology is, well, biology. It is not a should or shouldn't type of thing. All I am saying is understanding the undeniable and nonmallealbe fact of the nature of human biological reproduction essential to responsible sex.

Jim said...

By the way Deuce, It is a fact that Sara Palin was interested in removing books from the public library in Wasilla when she served as Mayor. Do you really want a President who is going to tell you what you can and can not read?

The Deuce said...

By the way Deuce, It is a fact that Sara Palin was interested in removing books from the public library in Wasilla when she served as Mayor.

No, it ain't. I read the article you gave as "proof". It was the vaguest "he said, she said" bit of fluff imaginable. Only one person was even named as thinking she said something along those lines, and no information was given about any of the books she supposedly wanted removed, when precisely she said it, or any other helpful context. The accusation is vaporous.


Biology is, well, biology. It is not a should or shouldn't type of thing. All I am saying is understanding the undeniable and nonmallealbe fact of the nature of human biological reproduction essential to responsible sex.

First of all, yes, biology is about facts, and cminor just schooled you in them in a way that destroys the insinuations you were trying to make about Palin. Care to own up?

Second of all, cut the bull. You explicitly said that Palin "has a pregnant 17-year-old daughter and a Downs Syndrome baby" and that this is because she "shows a blithe disregard for science and common sense."

This directly followed your little lecture about genetic errors and age, so it is obvious that you were trying to say that Palin was responsible for her child's Downs Syndrome by getting pregnant at an older age.

It is clear you weren't just tossing some scientific information out there. You were making a "should or shouldn't" argument and specifically assigning blame to Palin for her child having Downs, which was disgusting enough, and now you're compounding your vile behavior by lying about it. Here's some advice: We've all read your entry, and we all know English, so don't bother. In the immortal words of Judge Judy, don't pee on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

Vicious slander, dishonesty, cruel and unfair accusations, the holding of vendettas against the innocent, and a refusal to repent of one's slimy behavior. To repeat a certain someone, these are Christ’s values?

Oh, and as for Palin and creationism, the AP has a brief, straightforward article with the relevant facts. Nothing nearly as exciting as book burnings and mass creationist indoctrination to get yourself worked up about, but then, the truth rarely is as good as histrionic propaganda for whipping yourself into a good frenzy.

CMinor said...

Jim, I was gonna blow you off, but I'll try again. Realize that I'm rather well-versed in biology, and have personal experience of the reproductive variety.

I pointed out that maternal age is only one of a number of factors in fertility. It also happens to be one of a number of factors in Down's Syndrome.

That considered, from what scientific source do you get the notion that having a baby at an age over forty "shows a blithe disregard for science and common sense?"

CMinor said...

Aside to the deuce:

Thanks fer the backing!

The Deuce said...

I realize this is bordering on the beating of dead horses, so I'll just provide this link to some more relevant info on Palin and sex-ed without comment. Suffice to say, it makes Jim's argument look even more unreasonable and ill-informed. Okay, no comment other than that.