Friday, October 03, 2008

Palin on the future of the women's movement.

Here's what I've meant to say all along:



West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Actually, I think that caption was supposed to read,

"Honey, I'll be right with you. I am currently working on making sure no more babies are murdered by ANYONE, not even YOU, because life is just that valuable."

Mpeterson said...

I'm afraid I'd disagree and say that life is invaluable.

It doesn't have a price.

Killing babies is illegal in the United States, unless you mean the kind of slow murder that comes from cutting benefits to working poor people, cutting off their childrens' educational possibilities, and cutting the benefits of young people who risk their lives for us before coming home to a short sheeted VA. I suppose those are all a kind of murder.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, this caption is silly. Sarah Palin would not be taking her daughter's right away because no one has a so-called right to kill an innocent person.

Personhood doesn't depend on where a person is located, how far along a person is in development, or if a person relies on someone else for sustenance.

Are you any less of a person when you are in the bathroom than when you are in the kitchen? Are you more of a person now than when you were 15 because you now have more knowledge and wisdom than you did at 15? Were you less of a person at 5 because at that age you depended on your parents to provide your shelter and food? Does a person suffering with cancer stop being a person if they use a feeding tube for nourishment?

It also seems in your comment that you are implying that because a person supports the unborn, they automatically don't support the poor who have already been born. Being concerned for the unborn and born who suffer in poverty are not mutually exclusive positions. A person of goodwill should defend both the unborn and the born with equal vigor. A person is a person, after all.

That's my two cents.

All the best!

Mpeterson said...

They are not mutually exclusive, but an ideology recently in power treated them as if they were.

What do you think constitutes the personhood of a person?


Anonymous said...


It really is unfortunate that our political system here is so divided and adversarial. It would be better to have leaders who govern using the best ideas from liberalism, conservativism, or any other -ism---as long as a particular idea corresponds to the objective nature of things like the dignity of the human person, the ultimate destiny of man, etc. I don't think any individual political philosophy has a monopoly on the full truth. In general, political philosophies seem to be more or less true and good insofar as they correspond to ojective reality.

As for personhood, it would seem that human personhood exists or is constituted in a being that has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions.

Do you believe that an unborn fetus is a human person? If the fetus is not a human person, what is it? When does a fetus become a person deserving of human rights, if not immediately at conception?

All the best.

Mpeterson said...

lol... I had a professor years ago who said that putting an -ism on the end of anything turned it into a religion. I still think he was right -- but I like your idea.

I'm afraid your definition of human is circular. You've defined human being as something inherently human -- unless by "human function" you mean something that isn't human.

But if we define human according to 'human functions' you'll still have to tell me which ones you mean, since there are a lot of human functions present in other animals and some human functions not at all present in 2 day old blastocysts.

btw, my experience has been that these kinds of discussions are almost always impossible in a blog environment; the bandwidth is too limited. If you're in the area here you'd always be welcome to come up to the university for coffee. I'll buy.