One step further down the Sarah assault road
Get this: a New York Times writer says the very fact that Palin got amniocentesis is proof that she considered abortion!
My God, these people are reprehensible.
And the comments from New York Times readers.... Lord have mercy. These people are missing some essential ingredient of humanity.
My God, these people are reprehensible.
And the comments from New York Times readers.... Lord have mercy. These people are missing some essential ingredient of humanity.
posted by Walker at 2:09 PM
3 Comments:
This is ridiculous. I took the quad screening when I was pregnant (I will never do that again!!!! EVVVEERRRRRR) which showed an ever so slightly elevated risk for Downs and I considered getting the amnio to find out for sure. In the end I decided against it because the risk was still under 1% (And yes that was still cosidered elevated LOL) so I didn't want to risk it. But if it had shown that I had a very elevated risk I may have done the amnio because you want to know and you want to educate yourself and be prepared for the challenge!
She hid the Down syndrome news even after the children were told of the pregnancy. When the baby was born, 14-year-old Willow commented, “He looks like he has Down syndrome.”
Palin’s response: “If he does, you know you will still love him, Willow. It’ll be okay.”
Am I the only one who finds this :inside information" strange? Aren't they sort of missing the context and being, I dunno, highly speculative?
We had amniocentosis with both pregnancies. First, it's money for the hospitals so the push it. It'd highly recommended. Second, you want to put your mind at ease that the baby is fine. I like Freakonomics (methodological problems notwithstanding), but Levitt is revealing himself here to be a typical moonbat. Sad.
BTW, apologies for typos above, I was typing one-handed with my 3-year old daughter on one knee (at work, waiting for MDO to open).
In other news, liberals have discovered why half the country is full of morons--I mean, why half the country doesn't vote the way liberals tell them to:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
Read the first few paragraphs, then skip to the bottom to go onto the the follow up analysis:
http://edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html
Scroll down to Howard Gardner. This guy is a psychologist, Harvard University, visiting professor at New York University. Should be smart . . .
"Why, then, do right wing partisans ignore this evidence and continue to support policies that are patently dysfunctional? I believe it is because, having stated a position, based on either their own family values or those dictated by their religion, they are loathe to change their minds and declare that they have been wrong."
Love that deep analysis. There's a lot of stuff there, but nothing fascinates me more than when liberals start pondering why anybody with enough intelligence to work a voting machine would even consider voting for a Republican. Is it that some people are just born evil, or is it congenital stupidity?
"God is useful, but not necessary." Gotta love liberals. Yeah, God's useful . . . for, I dunno, creating the universe. Stuff like that.
Post a Comment
<< Home