No that's exactly what it is. Don't even pretend otherwise. It's specious and irresponsible to suggest that there is any progression to state sponsored genocide or genetic purification as a consequence of giving a woman a choice.
You are allowing the state to determine the instrinsic value of human life, which isn't a good thing.
Palin is apparently just such a dangerous kind of person in this regard as evidenced by her requirement that rape victims in Wasilla would have to pay for any rape kit work-ups. The State of Alaska disagreed with Palin's choice and mandated all districts must pay. An example of religious activism masquerading as a fiscal conservative.
According to the current mayor, there is no evidence that anyone was ever charged for a rape kit in Wasilla during Palin's administration or that Governor Palin ever supported this policy:
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136
What is interesting is that this policy does still seem to take place in some of the lower 48, including Illinois:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-heal...rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html
That's perfectly acceptable for Sunday School. But unfortunately for your point we are talking about publicly funded education.
With no responsible scientific basis for such creationist nonsense, Palin's even suggesting that it might be discussed within the context of science is irresponsible.
That is a good point, but remember, she never pushed for it.
Science education isn't a matter of States Rights. Imposing faith based curriculum as science is crossing the line set forth in the Establishment clause which is a Right that inures to all people individually.
Recall that the Constitution is established generally to protect the many from the tyranny of the few as well as the few from the tyranny of the many.
That is a good point; however, how do we regard things like global warming alarmism, for example...do we also need to completely ban any and all talk of environmental catastrophe from global warming as many children are being taught in the schools today... (for example some schools showing children Al Gore's film).
I'm not saying environmentalism or global warming are not scientific, but much of the climate change fearmongering I would say is akin to the "End Times" fearmongering certain folks on the Right engage in.
Also, even though one may disagree with creationism, what about discussing the flaws of the theory of evolution, and the alternatives, and what is wrong with them all...? This I understand is different than actually "teaching" creationism itself though.
Both sides of what? The line separating sense from nonsense?
How do you "know" if something is nonsense or sense though? Back during the 1930s, you were considered a complete crackpot if you didn't believe in the eugenics movement. Schools also taught children that the continents did not move, because science said so. Most economists thought it made no sense to claim free-market capitalism with little government was workable.
Now I'm not claiming creationism has any basis, or even that it should be taught (religion) but let children just debate things with each other. We should not tell children what and how to think, instead of letting them learn to think critically on their own, it seems.
Being that we place great value on the separation of church and State, it would be inappropriate for public schools to get into the business of teaching a faith based explanation for life. We have churches for that, but apparently this isn't good enough for some people.
How do we know what things are totally "faith-based" though? What about if something does seem to be totally faith-based, but its alternative explanation also has flaws...? Evolution is still a theory, just the most widely-accepted theory; there are alternative explanations as well, albeit lesser-known, that are not creationist. I say debate/discuss them all.
Environmentalism is based on science, so is climate-change, but there are points where that becomes just as faith-based as a religion as well.
Saying that the state allowing abortion might be a gateway to eugenics is indeed a huge slippery slope fallacy - the two are not related at all.
One decides what to do with embryos, or when humans are in their mothers' bodies, the other decides what to do with them when they are OUTSIDE Of it. By that logic someone who was against masturbation - and there are religious fundamentalists who are against it - could make the leap between allowing that and eugenics.
I disagree. What both decide is the instrinsic value of a human life. Whether that life is inside or outside of the womb should be irrelevant. And humans aren't embryos just when inside of the mother; they are embryos initially, then become fetuses.
It's a huge slippery slope fallacy, as even more evidenced to someone who's actually read Mein Kampf - Hitler was PRO-LIFE, so by the same logic he's using, we could say pro-life leads to eugenics - because you believe the state gets to determine when a certain person is OR is NOT life, because, when the state is pro-life, it is also determining the value of life.
The Nazis were far from being pro-life, and the entire eugenics movement was completely rejected by the Catholic Church, so I doubt Hitler was pro-life either, aside from maybe on paper because he needed to win the Catholic vote to get elected to power. For being pro-life, his party the Nazis sure had a penchant for killing the "weaker" races and aborting anyone "imperfect."
The state being "pro-life" does not mean it determines whether someone "is or is not" a life. That is what the pro-choice viewpoint allows, in order to protect the right of the woman.
What baby? Cells that are a part of the mother? Does State intrusion take dominion over ovums and sperm as well? Is this to be Palin's position if she ever attains the power to impose life decisions on others?
So after the first trimester then, when it starts to develop arms and legs and a brain, it's still "just cells" as far as you are concerned...? This is why I can support abortion for the first trimester, but afterwards I reject it.
The problem with the whole discussion about anti-abortion is that for the most part it is inexorably intertwined within the roles that men and women play in the reproductive cycle. Given the travails of gestating and nursing and raising a child, I'm not sure that men should have any say in the matter at all up until birth. It's not their bodies they are talking about.
And after a certain point, neither is it the woman's.
Personally, I think both sides make good points.
If she loved pork, I don't think she would have vetoed so much. Remember, Sarah Palin was resisted on this "Bridge to Nowhere"; others in her state wanted it built.