Cindy McCain Says She Disagrees With Palin On Abortion

[Bob Juch]

In a one-on-one interview with CBS' Katie Couric, Cindy McCain says she disagrees with Sarah Palin on abortion:

COURIC: Some, even Republicans seem surprised that Senator McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in-- in the cases of rape and incest and believes creationism should be taught in schools. And I'm just curious, do you believe--or do you agree with that?

MCCAIN: What I agree with is the fact that she is a social conservative, she is a reform minded woman, she is someone that will shake the-- the-- Washington up, which is exactly what we wanna do. We differ on many issues, we differ with-- across the board with people. We don't have to agree on every issue.

COURIC: Abortion has suddenly become, again, a hot button issue, because of her--

MCCAIN: I think to you all it has--

COURIC: Well, I think probably, at least, it's reported that a lot of people are now talking about this. And I-- where do you stand on abortion?

MCCAIN: I'm pro-life, I'm on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

COURIC: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?

MCCAIN: No.

COURIC: No? So, that's where you two differ--

MCCAIN: Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

[Weyoun]

"Big tent."

[gsabc]

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools? Nope. Nope. And nope. I will never, ever, vote to put anyone who thinks that into a position where they could cause it to happen.

[Here's Fanny!]

Speaking as someone who is pro-choice, I must say that I have more respect for people like Palin than like the McCains.

"It's murder!" "Unless it's rape. Or incest. Or medically risky. Or it's my daughter."

If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't place conditions on that dependent upon the method of said conception. I have never understood this.

This is based on what I'm gathering here that Palin is "pro-life no matter what" and the McCains are "pro-life, except".

[mellytu74]

Speaking as someone who is pro-choice, I must say that I have more respect for people like Palin than like the McCains.

"It's murder!" "Unless it's rape. Or incest. Or medically risky. Or it's my daughter."

If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't place conditions on that dependent upon the method of said conception. I have never understood this.

This is based on what I'm gathering here that Palin is "pro-life no matter what" and the McCains are "pro-life, except".

I would like to know where Sarah Palin stands on funding for counseling of rape victims who become pregnant.

If she believes those women should carry the baby to term, does she believe that the woman - a victim of a violent crime - needs a support group beyond the family?

If the woman is lucky enough to HAVE family support to begin with. In the ideal world, there would be help from the start until the moment the woman puts the baby up for adoption (and counseling beyond to help her deal with that).

[Thousandaire]

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools? Nope. Nope. And nope. I will never, ever, vote to put anyone who thinks that into a position where they could cause it to happen.

I'm inclined to agree but not even the president can dictate the school curricullum.

[Bob78164]

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools? Nope. Nope. And nope. I will never, ever, vote to put anyone who thinks that into a position where they could cause it to happen.

I'm inclined to agree but not even the president can dictate the school curricullum.

But the President can appoint the judges who do, or do not, conclude that the teaching of Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Amendment. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools? Nope. Nope. And nope. I will never, ever, vote to put anyone who thinks that into a position where they could cause it to happen.

I'm inclined to agree but not even the president can dictate the school curricullum.

But the President can appoint the judges who do, or do not, conclude that the teaching of Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Amendment. --Bob

And the Senate, which will be firmly under Democratic control, can approve or dsapprove those same judges or hold the nominations up in committee until 2012 if need be.

And Palin's stated position on creationism is that she would not favor inclusion of creationism in school curriculums but would not oppose a debate or discussion of creationism vs. evolution if it arose.

http://tinyurl.com/6gf5gk

What's happening in this frenzy is that bits and snippets of what are usually considered to be far right positions are thrown out there as being Palin's views on various subjects without any sort of discussion about whether they fairly reflect her views or the context in which they are taken. Before the full version can come out, the press and the rabid Dems have moved onto the next anti-Palin talking point.

She may be conservative, and may be ultra-conservative on some issues, but she isn't the wild eyed fanatic she is being made out to be by some, and the attacks against her will lose a lot of their credibility when people get a real chance to see her and judge for themselves.

[gsabc]

I'm inclined to agree but not even the president can dictate the school curricullum.

But the President can appoint the judges who do, or do not, conclude that the teaching of Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Amendment. --Bob

And the Senate, which will be firmly under Democratic control, can approve or dsapprove those same judges or hold the nominations up in committee until 2012 if need be.

And Palin's stated position on creationism is that she would not favor inclusion of creationism in school curriculums but would not oppose a debate or discussion of creationism vs. evolution if it arose.

http://tinyurl.com/6gf5gk

What's happening in this frenzy is that bits and snippets of what are usually considered to be far right positions are thrown out there as being Palin's views on various subjects without any sort of discussion about whether they fairly reflect her views or the context in which they are taken. Before the full version can come out, the press and the rabid Dems have moved onto the next anti-Palin talking point.

She may be conservative, and may be ultra-conservative on some issues, but she isn't the wild eyed fanatic she is being made out to be by some, and the attacks against her will lose a lot of their credibility when people get a real chance to see her and judge for themselves.

I don't believe she's a wild-eyed fanatic. She's just one of a number of people who put creationism, a faith-based belief, on a par with evolution, a science-based "belief" if you will. It shows a total lack of understanding of how science is done and of the definition and use of the term "theory" within the bounds of scientific discovery. They should not be taught as equivalent or equally valid in any science course, whether specifically in the curriculum or not. Leave creationism in the religious schools where it belongs.

If she could put the issue in her back pocket and leave it as a personal decision, fine. But I don't want her in a position where she could influence it, directly, indirectly or behind the scenes. I wouldn't have voted for her for governor, either, after hearing this.

[Appa23]

gsabc:

I'm curious if you even clicked on the linked story that SS provided?

[gsabc]

gsabc:

I'm curious if you even clicked on the linked story that SS provided?

Yes, I did and I read it. This is just one of my personal hot button items. If people want to believe one form of creationism or another, that's fine by me. If you want to bring it up in a sociology or religion course, that's fine. It doesn't belong in a science course.

[Appa23]

gsabc:

I'm curious if you even clicked on the linked story that SS provided?

Yes, I did and I read it. This is just one of my personal hot button items. If people want to believe one form of creationism or another, that's fine by me. If you want to bring it up in a sociology or religion course, that's fine. It doesn't belong in a science course.

OK. I asked because Palin clearly stated that she did not want creationsim taught in schools or included in the curriculum.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

As you have admitted that your family is not religious, you may not have had a child come home from school, after bieng told by a teacher that they can not raise any issue or make any comment that has religious connotations.

Palin simply expressed the radical thought that we should not shut down the conversation. Marketplace of ideas usually is a good thing. (Not to mention that it is just as much a violation of the First Amendment to tell any child that they can not express their religious beliefs.)

[gsabc]

gsabc:

I'm curious if you even clicked on the linked story that SS provided?

Yes, I did and I read it. This is just one of my personal hot button items. If people want to believe one form of creationism or another, that's fine by me. If you want to bring it up in a sociology or religion course, that's fine. It doesn't belong in a science course.

OK. I asked because Palin clearly stated that she did not want creationsim taught in schools or included in the curriculum.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

As you have admitted that your family is not religious, you may not have had a child come home from school, after bieng told by a teacher that they can not raise any issue or make any comment that has religious connotations.

Palin simply expressed the radical thought that we should not shut down the conversation. Marketplace of ideas usually is a good thing. (Not to mention that it is just as much a violation of the First Amendment to tell any child that they can not express their religious beliefs.)

The parts you quote are from the often-seen followup interview, the one after the manure hits the fan where you hear the candidate say, "What I meant was ..." The original quote during the debate, from the article:

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

And also this from the article:
The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."
That's a complete misrepresentation of the meaning of "theory" in science. Her original comment appears to me as her way of stating the party's platform plank. Whether she believes it herself or is just parroting the party's views, it's still incorrect. It apparently didn't hurt her election bid, but my vote wouldn't have been on her side of the ballot.

BTW, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended a complete elimination of religion in government, only that the government would not force any particular religion on the governed. Creationism can certainly be mentioned in school, but it should be in the context of being a religious-based belief, and not as a scientifically valid one. And which creationism? There are a lot of different versions floating around, depending on our particular religion.

[silverscreenselect]

BTW, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended a complete elimination of religion in government, only that the government would not force any particular religion on the governed. Creationism can certainly be mentioned in school, but it should be in the context of being a religious-based belief, and not as a scientifically valid one. And which creationism? There are a lot of different versions floating around, depending on our particular religion.

My own belief is that usually, when a teacher doesn't want to discuss a subject in class, it's very often because he or she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently and therefore cuts off debate rather than look stupid.

In this case, I think there are a lot of high school science teachers out there who aren't familiar enough with the finer points of the theory of evolution to attempt to rebut creationism. So, they call it faith-based nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

[Appa23]

BTW, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended a complete elimination of religion in government, only that the government would not force any particular religion on the governed. Creationism can certainly be mentioned in school, but it should be in the context of being a religious-based belief, and not as a scientifically valid one. And which creationism? There are a lot of different versions floating around, depending on our particular religion.

My own belief is that usually, when a teacher doesn't want to discuss a subject in class, it's very often because he or she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently and therefore cuts off debate rather than look stupid.

In this case, I think there are a lot of high school science teachers out there who aren't familiar enough with the finer points of the theory of evolution to attempt to rebut creationism. So, they call it faith-based nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

Personal experience tells me that there are public school teachers who are so afraid of the "PC police" coming down on them, they try to scrub all semblence of religion from the classroom. (Well, more Christianity than anything else here, but it is a demographic result.)

[Thousandaire]

My own belief is that usually, when a teacher doesn't want to discuss a subject in class, it's very often because he or she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently and therefore cuts off debate rather than look stupid.

In this case, I think there are a lot of high school science teachers out there who aren't familiar enough with the finer points of the theory of evolution to attempt to rebut creationism. So, they call it faith-based nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

There's no need to rebut creationism. It is faith-based nonsense and shouldn't be discussed in schools at all unless it's in a religion class.

[silverscreenselect]

My own belief is that usually, when a teacher doesn't want to discuss a subject in class, it's very often because he or she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently and therefore cuts off debate rather than look stupid.

In this case, I think there are a lot of high school science teachers out there who aren't familiar enough with the finer points of the theory of evolution to attempt to rebut creationism. So, they call it faith-based nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

There's no need to rebut creationism. It is faith-based nonsense and shouldn't be discussed in schools at all unless it's in a religion class.

The scientific method is not based on labelling a theory with which you disagree "faith based nonsense" and refusing to discuss it. By the same argument, I could label Einstein's Theory of Relativity "agnostic based nonsense" and refuse to discuss it as well.

[Weyoun]

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in schools? Nope. Nope. And nope. I will never, ever, vote to put anyone who thinks that into a position where they could cause it to happen.

I'm inclined to agree but not even the president can dictate the school curricullum.

But the President can appoint the judges who do, or do not, conclude that the teaching of Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Amendment. --Bob

And how's that going to work? There's quite a bit of case law, including at the Supreme Court level, that would make that trick difficult to pull.

Really.

[Bob78164]

I'm inclined to agree but not even the president can dictate the school curricullum.

But the President can appoint the judges who do, or do not, conclude that the teaching of Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Amendment. --Bob

And how's that going to work? There's quite a bit of case law, including at the Supreme Court level, that would make that trick difficult to pull.

Really.

See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).

Be warned. It's a long opinion. --Bob

[Bob78164]

BTW, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended a complete elimination of religion in government, only that the government would not force any particular religion on the governed. Creationism can certainly be mentioned in school, but it should be in the context of being a religious-based belief, and not as a scientifically valid one. And which creationism? There are a lot of different versions floating around, depending on our particular religion.

My own belief is that usually, when a teacher doesn't want to discuss a subject in class, it's very often because he or she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently and therefore cuts off debate rather than look stupid.

In this case, I think there are a lot of high school science teachers out there who aren't familiar enough with the finer points of the theory of evolution to attempt to rebut creationism. So, they call it faith-based nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

Framing the issue this way misses the point. It's not up to anyone to rebut creationism. It's up to those who want creationism discussed in science class to point to scientific evidence that supports it.

They can't. They can't come close. Casting doubt on the current understanding of evolution, even if those taking this tack had the knowledge and qualifications to do so (I'm not saying it can't be done -- I'm saying those who support creationism, particularly in this context, generally lack the professional competence to do so), still would not justify teaching creationism. The only thing that could is verifying the hypothesis of creationism through means that render it falsifiable. And that's never been done. I'm fairly sure it never will be. --Bob

[mrkelley23]

My own belief is that usually, when a teacher doesn't want to discuss a subject in class, it's very often because he or she doesn't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently and therefore cuts off debate rather than look stupid.

In this case, I think there are a lot of high school science teachers out there who aren't familiar enough with the finer points of the theory of evolution to attempt to rebut creationism. So, they call it faith-based nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

There's no need to rebut creationism. It is faith-based nonsense and shouldn't be discussed in schools at all unless it's in a religion class.

The scientific method is not based on labelling a theory with which you disagree "faith based nonsense" and refusing to discuss it. By the same argument, I could label Einstein's Theory of Relativity "agnostic based nonsense" and refuse to discuss it as well.

The scientific method is based on classifying testable hypotheses which lead to reproducible experimentation as science. The central tenet of Intelligent Design or Creationism is untestable, and therefore not appropriate for discussion in a science class, unless it is to show the difference between scientific thinking and magical thinking.

You may label Einstein any way you wish, but it will not alter what is, and is not, science. And given your recent posts about presidential politics, I think I would greatly appreciate your staying away from any discussion of Mr Einstein and his theories.

[Weyoun]

But the President can appoint the judges who do, or do not, conclude that the teaching of Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Amendment. --Bob

And how's that going to work? There's quite a bit of case law, including at the Supreme Court level, that would make that trick difficult to pull.

Really.

See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).

Be warned. It's a long opinion. --Bob

I know of it, and it only proves my point. I'm also aware of Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), which you know as well as I do would be controlling.

[Spock]

Hmm-this thread title looks familiar-now where have I seen it before?

It is coming to me now.

It was the 1980's and the story appeared countless times. Only then it was usually about how Mrs. Reagan disagreed with the President on abortion.