I get what you're saying, bon, but let me be clear about what makes my head explode -- I have no problem with anyone, pro-choice or not, having all kinds of worries in her situation. Or, for that matter, having doubts even about a normal pregnancy. But not sure if she'd be able to embrace the child in her heart goes considerably beyond that, into not accepting the child territory; it's what her flavor of anti-choice rhetoric (at least what I've seen of it, which is way more than I care to) tells women they i have to do just by virtue of having conceived. It's also used in that crowd as a close (and deliberate) parallel to the discourse of taking Jesus into your heart, and so its negative goes to a much larger rejection than just the normal doubts. I don't at all doubt that she had her fears, and that accepting the fact that she was having a kid with disabilities was a very hard thing to face. But my dog-whistle detector says that she's implying something deeper than just "it's hard for me to talk about".

oy. I'm a good friend, yeah? Just checking.

Avoiding Palin talk. Letting her hang herself with her own ridiculousness as a candidate is fine.

I'm CRAZY.

Oh yeah, there are a lot of reasons-- valid ones to not want her anywhere near the Presidency. Like I said-- just struck me as odd.

Hiding family matters from the kids is a grand old tradition.

You know, perhaps this is why it bothered me so much. As the youngest in my family, I was always the last to know anything. Even now, at forty-one, my mother feels the need to not tell me anything until she damn well feels like it or it suits her purposes. Like earlier this summer when she told me, the night before I was to travel to Miami for a visit with my kids, that she'd divorced her husband of nearly eighteen years. Six weeks earlier. Because she's gotten back together with my father. So I had the fun task of telling my kids that the only grandfather they'd known on that side of the family was no longer around and I'm the one who had to hold them while they cried as I tried to explain that they probably wouldn't be seeing him during this visit.

So I'll grant you, perhaps I have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to this type of information withholding.

But not sure if she'd be able to embrace the child in her heart goes considerably beyond that, into not accepting the child territory; it's what her flavor of anti-choice rhetoric (at least what I've seen of it, which is way more than I care to) tells women they i have to do just by virtue of having conceived. It's also used in that crowd as a close (and deliberate) parallel to the discourse of taking Jesus into your heart, and so its negative goes to a much larger rejection than just the normal doubts.

I just don't know what this means -- and I'm not being snotty. I don't understand what's pinging you. It sounds contradictory to draw a connection between being anti-choice and never accepting a Downs child.

I do think there is a bit of cynical posturing in her revealing her doubts, because the implication is that "even if you have doubts, they will be resolved once the baby is born." But I believe her when she says that she felt that way, because I'm sure I would feel as unsure myself, even if I wasn't in her family and professional position.

Vibing for you, ita.

Anyone know where a transcript of the speech she gave is?

What I felt like I heard in the 5 min I had it on was that I am not Patriotic because I'm not Republican, that REAL miltary service is a Republican thing - perhaps it wasn't said, just how I was made to feel.

msbelle, try here: [link]

From one of my desktop calendars today:

Weakest Link host Anne Robinson: What insect is commonly found hovering above lakes?
Contestant: Crocodiles.

I just don't know what this means -- and I'm not being snotty. I don't understand what's pinging you.

I know you're not, and also that I'm doing a crap job of explaining myself. As I said, I have no problem either believing or accepting that anyone in her position would have a lot of worries. But the pings are twofold -- first, that the "in your heart" phrasing isn't just for emphasis in charismatic/evangelical rhetoric. It's a binary thing. You accept him in your heart, or you don't. Second, I've heard the notion that you simply have to accept a child, whatever its problems, come out in a lot of pretty hateful conversations when the subject isn't a social-conservative hero.

If I'm right that it's a dog-whistle, then by definition it's not a perfectly clear signal to begin with; plus, it's not my native culture. But the phrase made my "oh, my god, it's just like those fundiewomen from the inlaws' church!" meter go off, much more than just the normal stresses. (And neither am I saying that she was actively planning to ditch the kid. I can't guess what she was planning -- just that, on an emotional level, it didn't read to me as "we'll love him, but it's going to come with challenges".)