Palin
- Thread starter 30A Skunkape
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Mr. Bob, At the age of 39 I went to my doctor for an annual check-up only to learn I was pregnant again. I had just had my first child 9 months earlier. I was shocked, worried how my husband would take it, literally an emotional wreck for quite a few weeks. It never entered my mind that I should not have my baby because of my age.
Did it occur to you that while she may or may not have planned to have another child, that's the hand she was dealt and she chose to play it the way her heart led her to play it.
One of my friends, aged 42, believed that her 17-year-old daughter was to be her only child based. Doctors told her that she and her husband both had fertility issues. So when she went to the doctor last fall (at the start of her daughter's senior year in high school) to get her gallbladder checked, she made her do the pregnancy test 4 times and cried for a week when they all came back positive.
Her husband, on the other hand, was overjoyed and my friend soon perked up and was just as excited (when she wasn't throwing up from morning sickness!) The baby was born to parents in their 40s who are both teachers, but she is well-loved and lucky.
My mother was adopted by older parents--her mother was 34 and her father was 54. Mom was biologically the youngest of 8, and while I can't remember her biological mother's exact age I don't think she was a spring chicken.
My point is that babies are born to women at a range of ages for a range of reasons. To categorically say that Palin was irresponsible for having a baby at 44 is very odd to me.
(And did Elizabeth Edwards not have children at the ages of 48 and 50?
)Absolutely correct and congrats. Bob is just looking for anyway to spew his hate. Try not to take offense
I love Bob. He's not hateful; he's just wrong this time.
Last edited:
Amongst the many other areas I'm not in agreement with Palin on, it bothers me that she wants to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ff4c96a0-33b6-4afe-a92d-35e490373977
We are from a conservation background and from what I am reading she is not much on protecting our natural resources.
No one has presented any convincing evidence of national or foreign experience or knowledge or qualifications? anything? What are her credentials beyond Alaska?
I don't like that she was such a strong Pat Buchanan supporter. That says to me that she is too extreme for me.
I could get scared if it turns out that she seems to be an asset!..
I really can't imagine how her selection would catch on though. It seems so way off base other than her being sort of a "maverick" like McCain used to be. Then again maybe he really never was ....
We are from a conservation background and from what I am reading she is not much on protecting our natural resources.
No one has presented any convincing evidence of national or foreign experience or knowledge or qualifications? anything? What are her credentials beyond Alaska?
I don't like that she was such a strong Pat Buchanan supporter. That says to me that she is too extreme for me.
I could get scared if it turns out that she seems to be an asset!..
I really can't imagine how her selection would catch on though. It seems so way off base other than her being sort of a "maverick" like McCain used to be. Then again maybe he really never was ....
Last edited:
I'm against drilling in either Alaska or the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but at least drilling in the Alaskan wilderness does not jeapordize the economic engine of an entire state known for its beautiful beaches.
Perhaps not, but it certainly could jeopardize the entire planet with the melting of the glaciers, the extinction of the wild life, especially the polar bears...it upsets the entire eco system.
and transporting the oil/gas from there could put our country at national security risk. The pipeline is very vulnerable to terrorists.
We are in a global oil market. Just because it is drilled in the U. S. does not for a minute mean it will stay in the U. S. In fact, anything retrieved from that area will most likely be shipped to Asia. It is shorter/quicker than sending it to the lower 48. Perhaps an increase in supply would help some, but
the risks of drilling in either place far outweigh the gain according to the research I have read. Far better in the long run to look at alternatives...
Absolutely correct and congrats. Bob is just looking for anyway to spew his hate. Try not to take offense
bob has a right to his opinion. if you do not agree with Bob then there is a way to say so.
Absolutely agree with you, goodwitch. Drilling anywhere in the US solves nothing and prolongs the inevitable at great risk to our security and environment. My only point was if we are forced to choose between drilling in Alaska or Florida, I choose Alaska. The current situation in Russia certainly clouds the waters, though, doesn't it?
I certainly agree...and yes, that Sea between Alaska and Russia is pretty small...