« John McCain says he may postpone convention ... and he's praying about it | Main | Palin and the Other Women »

August 30, 2008

The Best Thing About Sarah Palin

The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate has all sorts of interesting political implications, which are being diced and parsed as I write. But I'm more interested in the long-term cultural implications of the choice of Palin, whether the McCain?Palin ticket wins or loses in November, for one of the most vexing horizons of impossibility in our culture: the abortion rate among unborn babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

Upwards of 85 percent of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome elect to terminate the pregnancy, according to several studies in the peer-reviewed journal Prenatal Diagnosis. A 1999 British study in that journal found the termination rate to be between 91 and 93 percent. When I was a teenager in the 1980s, I remember seeing many people my age and younger who had the distinctive facial and behavioral characteristics of Down children. These days I rarely see a Down Syndrome child at all.

What is peculiar about Down Syndrome as a reason for termination is that, plainly put, you rarely meet a Down Syndrome "sufferer" who is notably unhappy. The condition has a range of manifestations, some more disabling than others, but many, many persons with Down Syndrome thrive as children and adults, even if they may not have the same range of capabilities as you or I do.

The fact that this syndrome has become a reason for termination is evidence of the terrible power of culture. A culturally neutral artifact (prenatal diagnosis of congenital diseases) combined with a culturally tragic artifact (elective abortion) begins to make it plausible that parents should avoid the challenges and risks of a Down pregnancy by ending it. The decreasing number of children born with the condition begins to make it more difficult to imagine that "normal" families can absorb the stresses of raising such a child, and undermines public support for public programs that support families who have made that decision. Which, over time, makes carrying a Down Syndrome baby to term ever more inconceivable, leading to increased rates of termination, leading to decreasing plausibility . . . until one day the burden of bringing a Down Syndrome child into the world is seen as so grave that less than 10 percent of parents take the risk.

But Sarah and Todd Palin have done it. I cannot think of any other public figures in my adult life, at least of the prominence they are about to enjoy or endure, who have made this decision. They will cause many, many families to reconsider the horizons of the possible. Their public example could very well lead to a cultural sea change - a dramatic shift in the "horizons of the possible." That phrase from my book is no metaphor. Those horizons are so real that, for a future generation of children and their parents, they are quite literally a matter of life and death. For this reason, which utterly transcends politics and this year's election, the sudden prominence of the Palins is, in the deepest sense, an extraordinary act of public service.

(Cross-posted from Andy Crouch's Culture Making.)

Comments

For me, this is the bottom line:

Because of his advanced age, there is a very real chance that McCain could be stricken by a disabling medical condition or, God forbid, even die in office.

Who would then be commander in chief and in charge of national security? A totally unknown and untested political rookie, a young woman who was selected by the president, not by anyone's vote.

It's utter insanity. And as dangerous as it gets.

Did anybody notice that this is the most anti-family thing possible? A mother of 5 who just had a baby less than a year ago being told to move away 4000 miles and ripped away from her children? And this is the conservative party? Our culture is just very anti-family and the church is not talking about it much. In addition of course able men should serve as public leaders and not women as has been the standard throughout the Bible and human history but again the church can't talk about this, too taboo, have to fit into the society, can't be too radical. Notice when you as a Christian are agreeing with atheists about various topics (abortion, birth control, small number of children, women being leaders and priests/ministers, financial independence instead of dependence on God) and wonder if the basis of your position is influenced by society or worldly values when you disagree with all of Christian history and practice and agree with athiests.

How can Palin step in as president if McCain dies while in office? She asks, what does the VP do on a day to day basis? She should also ask, what does the president do on a day to day basis, as that job could become hers very soon. She has her priorities all wrong. A new baby and other young children as major priorities? Doesn't she know her own limits? Or is this opportunity to glory just too enticing -- never mind that she may have a full time job leading not only the USA, but also, the free world? There's no way that she could fill such an awesomely important position. How long would it take her to learn a minimum of what should be fundamental knowledge regarding the job of President, which is the main purpose of having a vice president. All other responsibilities of the VP pale in significance if by constitutional law, she would become president, perhaps within a few months. Of course she could always resign, but I doubt that she would, based on the poor judgment she has so plainly displayed in even accepting a job she should know she's not qualified for. She could be blinded by pride, but for those who would welcome her as president, where is YOUR judgment? Not much better than McCain's, who has not even said she would make a good president, only a good running mate and possible VP! Senator McCain, let's hear a "yes" or "no". You who have been beating the drum of Obama's disqualifying inexperience in foreign affairs: Are you just kidding us, or do you sincerely think Palin is qualified to be president? What a hyocrite, and what a reckless one at that, for failure to consider the one imperative qualification of a VP! that he/she be a person well qualified to lead our country during one of the most difficult periods of time in our history. On the basis of judgment in selecting Palin, I don't see McCain or those who are exhilarated and gushing over his choice as demonstrating good judgment regarding what would be a prudent choice for the all important position of potential president for up to the four years of tough crises that we face as a nation. Where is their regard for what would be best for our country. This whole fiasco brilliantly illustrates the immorality of single issue politics (or if you prefer, narrowly limited politics) doesn't it? Pray about it.

God forbid McCain should die in office, but if this were to happen, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain put together. She is the most intelligent of the same group also. She also is better looking- and has better morals than the rest. I trust that McCain will appoint someone like Mitt Romney or Jack Kemp to oversee economics- and continue the recovery from the Clinton internet bubble burst in 2000.

As far as the comment written earlier by K; men should serve as public leaders and not women as has been the standard throughout the Bible and human history; I have just finished writing an essay on women in the Old and New Testament. what about Deborah and Jael in the OT and Pheobe and Priscilla in the NT? Men are to be the leaders in the home, and I have erespect for my husband. Yet I know that if a godly woman who was as capable as a godly man to run the country, he would follow her lead.

I am so happy that John Mc Cain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. What a wondefful example to women who want to serve God and want to serve their country. Mc Cain didn't chose her to be President but Vice President. God will take care of the rest.

If you are worried McCain dying in office and Palin taking over because of her lack of experience - than you couldn't even consider voting for Obama. What experience does he have. This is a BIG TIME double-standard! http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-vs-barack-obama/

Steve and Roy: Ya'll need to check out your claims about executive experience re Obama and Palin. Read the articles about them in Wikipedia. You'll find some pretty impressive things about each of them. Obama does have extensive executive experience. I counted eight different ones where he was president or director of various organizations, compared with Palin's 4. However, it's hard to compare the two on just that issue. I recommend instead, reading the entire article about each. I personally like the style of each in many respects. I think they would each admire one another in many ways. Palin had some positive things in her article about Obama, which have just been taken down, since her selection of McCain's choice for who should replace him if he dies. It appears, to her credit, that she is very ethical. Not surprisingly, her main opponents in doing the right things for the people of Alaska have been Republicans, many of which she has thrown out of privileged positions they had held but not honored regarding their duty to serve in the best interest of the citizens of Alaska. I can see why she's liked! However, I have to agree with others that there's inadequate indication that she will be ready to be in charge of our entire executive branch of government within the next 5 months.

K,

You have to be kidding! While women leaders were not the norm in the Bible, there were still plenty. And she won't be pastor-in-chief. And as far as the comment about being ripped away from her children, I believe they will move to DC with her. (And if you hadn't noticed, she's married and her husband is quite able to care for their kids.)

Nobody would bat an eye at a man in her same circumstances. Obviously, you really do think women should remain barefoot and pregnant. She has accomplished more at the age of 44 than most people do their entire lives, but it's still not enough.

I too am proud of Sarah,

I do wonder how she plans to run a country, well, and focus on the needs of a special child. I have one in my home. It take more than one parent.

Her husband cares for dogs pretty good. I guess that will qualify him to be good enough to run a family of 5 all by himself, right? gimme a break. If he's like any typical guy he's gonna need a lotta help. Her absence -- and I do mean absence will mean those kids are raised by nannies and one clue-less daddy. I hope he's not feeling too negleted... there's a lot more trouble in DC to temp one than alaska towns with only 7K people.

I am so glad McCain picked Palin because Obama is a shoo in now. Yaah!!!!!

Christine, If you were referring to my posting immediately above yours, I'm sorry if I gave an impression that any of my points had anything to do with Sarah Palin being a woman. Absolutely not! I think a woman who was qualified could be president as well as any man, all other variables being the same. However, while I'm at it, let me add that it seems to me that McCain tapped her for his VP choice in large part because she was a woman. That's ok with me, even commendable, again, everything else being equal. However, if she's drastically less qualified than other highly qualified persons which he was considering, I wonder how many people would regard his picking Palin as sexist behavior? I know for a fact that many women who wanted Hillary for president are actually offended at McCain's choice of Palin. They are saying, "Do you think we will be impressed enough to vote for you two just because one of you is a woman? That's insulting to our backing Hillary, as if we backed her only because she was a woman and not because she was in our opinion, also the best qualified person for president as well. I haven't heard a single Hillary fan say, "Hooray for McCain's choice of Palin -- now we'll vote for him and her", though I'm sure there are some who would say and do so. I doubt that very many will, and unfortunately for McCain, I think his poor judgment in this matter will cause many undecided voters to now vote for Obama.

People are capable of doing a lot of things. I am capable of cutting off my feet. Women are capable of being public leaders. Does that imply that either of them should be done? No not at all. We have to figure out what it is that God wants us to do, not just what we can do or want to do or feel good doing. It's clear that Christian practice and belief has never supported women as public leaders. However, in the last hundred years with the secular feminist movement just "by coincidence" now a lot of Christians also support women as public leaders. God didn't change and the Bible didn't change. We are not discovering things that Christians before us didn't know. A woman with a family clearly needs to be the primary nurturer of her family and that is the ideal. We should not disparage that ideal or demean anything that is distinctively feminine. Our society has morphed to value only masculine pursuits. Anything distinctively feminine is considered trash or useless. But that is not God's design and we should not pretend it is just to be polite with our society.

i'm more convinced than ever that an iq test should be required to vote ...

I agree, K. Let's start with your IQ.

I'm with Mike. I couldn't me more thrilled with Karl Rove's .... oh, I mean John McCain's choice for veep. This makes it a slam dunk for Barack Obama.

Mrs. Palin...if you think that we can respect your decision to leave your INFANT child, disabled or not, and hit the campaign trail, forget it. In fact, forget what we think...what does your God think?

BTW, I am woman and a Christian. If McCain thinks that as a woman I would vote for McCain now because he chose a human being who happens to have the same internal plumbing that I have, he's more of a doddering old fool that I thought he was.

In response to Joe on 8/31/08.

Well said.

It boils down to what we value in society. We truly do not value the family and the role of the woman as child bearer and nurturer do we? Women would rather "compete in a man's world" than create a beautiful world for their family in the sanctuary of their own home.

Imagine what kind of leaders Sarah's children would turn out to be if she was...dare I say it...submissive to God's design for her...that is with the internal plumbing AND hard wiring to bear and care for children (the fact that a woman's body can create physical nourishment for a baby...that is just mind blowing--that's God's work...it is inconceivable for us as men to think of what that would be like. I am not sad that I will never get to experience that, but I am joyful for the mothers that have that privilege.)

Don't women get it? YOU have the power to influence the whole world by raising good, God fearing children. Can you handle that awesome responsibility? Can you humble yourself and allow yourself to be used that way?

Imagine what would happen if Sarah Palin pointed all of her intelligence and all her talents and abilities in the direction of her family and children...I would LOVE to be an adopted son in that home!

My father was the formal leader in our house and in our community and he had a big ego. My mother is the most gentle person in the world, most humble person in the world. As I decide what type of leader I want to be in life, I know that I want to follow my father's good example of how to live a good and God honoring life. I also know that I want to put others first and love others with the same gentle spirit and humility my mother has in her.

Am I better qualified to lead because I am a man? No, but by being born male, I know God's design for me. Some men want to lead more than they are called to lead and they will likely fail. Some men are called to lead and they do not answer the call. Each man should lead according to God's will in his life. Most of us may not be called to lead outside our home, and if this is the case then we should find contentment in this role and apply all of our intelligence, talents, and abilities to do this for God's glory.

By making her female, God has designed Sarah Palin to bear children. One day she will stand before God's throne and what will she say? "God, I'm sorry I lost my children, but I gained the USA for you." Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or independent, we just couldn't justify that could we? Why do we think God will?

(Obviously this is just an example, don't try to poke holes and say that maybe her children will turn out to be great evangelists...again, this is just an example).

For what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? You can tell what people value by how they live out their life...by how they go about their daily business. I think Sarah has been blessed with much and it is unfortunate that she's not going to bless her family with much. She's going to scatter her gifts outside her home.

Not all men learn how to become good leaders, it takes work. Not all women learn how to become good mothers, it takes work. I would place greater value on Sara's work as a mother than as a VP. McCain can find another VP, but Sarah's children will never find another mother.

Wow, Andy, I kind of feel sorry for you. You made a point no one could disagree with, and so no one disagrees with it; they all just ignore it. What does that say?

You are right about the coupling of a neutral artifact with a tragic artifact, and when the gates of elective abortion were thrown open everyone in America knew this would happen. I see lots of people criticizing Palin for not being pro-family, meaning a stay-at-home mom. I wish these people would understand an even deeper crisis: That we view the disabled as an inconvenience, to be swept out of our lives if possible. Congratulations to the Palins for making the choice to love their son. Her politics I can discuss in another post.

Great article, Andy. The only thing I'm disappointed with is the fact that the replies are so off-topic. Let's take all tangential comments to another forum and focus on the topic at hand.

I am just saying let's have substantila Chriatian dialogue on issues of family life and gender roles rather than going with the winds of our culture which CT is also guilty of and I am sure I am too. Using the preponderance of evidence from the Bible, history, and human relations, it seems obvious that a woman's primary responsibility should be for the home. If she is called to singleness like Condi Rice, that is a different issue. Thinking that a woman who is a mother of 5, had a baby in the last year can "do it all" and be president and a wonderful mother is just absurd. God calls us to follow his will and be content in our roles, however humble or exalted they may be, rather than trying to please everyone or follow a worldly culture's whims.

K,

Why can a man do this while a woman cannot? Why is a woman's greatest responsibility in her home while a man's is outside of it? Did God make men to care for everybody else and then stick women into the mix to make up for what men missed on the homefront? Can a man who is a father of 5 "do it all"? This is short-sighted thinking that lets dads get off the hook too easily.

Think about it: God's first command was to the man AND woman together: "Fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over . . . every living thing. . . ." (Gen. 1:11 NASB). This was given before the negative command to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There's more nuance to family roles than I once believed.

Whereas previously, a Down’s child could be born without the prior knowledge of the mother, going forward, a parent with a Down’s child will likely (at least in the developed world) have made a conscious choice to have that child. As prenatal testing for trisomy 21 becomes ubiquitous, Down’s children (and eventually those with other genetic disorders) will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents. The children will become public sacrifices made by their parents for their faith. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their children’s heads with swords.
Genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue. To the extent that their practical benefit is visible to everyone, they do not represent the special domain of religion. To demonstrate religious virtue, it is necessary to sacrifice authentic moral values in favor of “religious” values. The particular object of the sacrifice is not important – there is nothing particularly “biblical” about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.) If Christian fundamentalists decided that cutting of one’s hand sufficed as proof of moral virtue, they would be wrong to do so, but not much more so than the numerous other ways that people find to be self-destructive. What is really vicious about fundamentalists in America is that the prey on the most vulnerable –poor pregnant young girls and women, those dying from painful terminal illnesses, the loved ones of brain-dead patients, — and children afflicted with terrible genetic illnesses. One can at least grasp the moral indifference with which a fundamentalist can force a single young mother to abandon her goals and dreams and condemn her and her child to poverty. But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?
http://www.rationalmind.net/2008/08/30/freaks-on-parade/

God created men and women with equal importance and equally good yet different roles and primary responsibilities. We are complementary, not competitors.

Why is a woman's greatest responsibility in her home while a man's is outside of it?

Well, that's like asking if men are more aggressive than women. It's just obvious and everyone has always acknowledged it. You are suggesting that basically all of Christian doctrine and history is misguided on family issues and yet somehow the Christians who happen to agree with our secular culture on gender issues are right and see something all the rest of us have missed for centuries. That is quite an outlandish statement!

Wow. I can't believe I'm reading all of this on a Christian website.

We - and I'm talking to the other Christians reading this...I'm pretty sure that's not everyone posting here - are instructed not to judge others, right? She has the right to do what she thinks is best for her family.

Our interest in her should be limited to her politics. This discourse should come off more like a job interview than a witch-hunt.

Great point, Andy. Its a shame so many folks have chosen to comment the way they have. Sarah Palin is an excellent choice for Vice President, and John McCain has done well to select her. Win or lose ... her selection bodes well for the future of the Republican Party.

Wow,

I am a Christian who must be giving "internet-Christians" much too much credit.
Why did God choose each and every Patriarch Saint in the OT?
That's right... Because of what they believed to be righteous behavior and the "judicious nature" they possessed. God-given discernment.
Ok. Let's see what degree of discernment that we possess.
Our entire system of government and the freedoms we enjoy, secured by the sacrifice of so many and composed in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States of America
should not be taken for granted.
This is the first time in American history that we have to choose between an American war hero who believes in this sacrifice and the two documents mentioned above and a Marxist who has been trust into political prominence by the Democratic Party.
If you doubt my assertion read up on Frank Davis Marshall and his mentoring of the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Senator Ted Kennedy's claim that the 2008 Democratic candidate is much like his brother Jack is quite telling. It tells us that Teddy has acquired dementia or alzheimers. The only comparisons that can be made are relative age and they are both Democrats. Jack Kennedy was a staunch anti-communist and his Catholic affiliation made him pro-life. He was also approximately 140-160 degrees more to the right (conservative) than his Teddy and Barack. He was even more conservative than Bill Clinton.
So what more is there to decide? I would vote for McCain/Palin and suggest that OBama/Biden run for El Supremo and Vice El Supremo of Cuba.

Regards,
Thomas

"It's just obvious and everyone has always acknowledged it."

But does the Bible teach it? Where does the Scripture say: "Men, go out and make the affairs of the world more important than the affairs of your family"?

What if Bill Clinton, for example, had made the commitment to his marriage and family that he instead made to his political career?


"It's just obvious and everyone has always acknowledged it."

But does the Bible teach it? Where does the Scripture say: "Men, go make the world your first priority and let your wives do the day-to-day parenting"?

What if Bill Clinton, for example, had made the commitment to his wife and daughter that he made instead to his political career?

(sorry if this appears twice; I submitted it once and my 'puter hung on me, so I'm resubmitting it)

Well first of all if the common universal human practice of men being more responsible for the outside world and women more responsible for the home was evil, do you think the Bible might have mentioned that and denounced it?

Maybe God intended for men to be primary caregivers and nurterers but he gave women breasts by accident?

Titus 2

1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.

3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

PRO 31
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

Clear distinction. No confusion.

You miss the point. Note, btw, that the Prov. 31 woman is involved in business--no "stay-at-home mom" here. But my point isn't about her. Where does God tell men to let the women do the child-rearing while the men do the men stuff? Why are husbands not equally responsible for their families? For being with their children? Why is the family a priority for moms but not dads? Neither of the verses you quote answer that.

When the Bible was written, the daily life of a son was bound up in the life of his father. He went to the flocks or the fields with dad. Dad was an ever-present factor in the son's life. Compare that to today, when the prevailing influence in a child's life is Mom. You say moms should come back home; I say dads should too. The presence or absence of a father in the home has a greater impact on all parts of a child's life than does the presence or absence of a mother. God himself is called Abba in the NT. Proverbs, for that matter, begins with the intimate love and teaching of a father. That's nurture for you. And Biblical.

Primary does not mean 100%. Primary means more than secondary. So a man's primary responsibility being outside the house does not mean he is 100% outside the house, just that he is more responsible for that than the woman is and she is more responsible for the home than he is. That is the pattern. She can be involved in business part time or whatever but her primary responsiblity is on the home as Pro 31 focuses on her fruit being at home and him at the city gates. What is unclear about that?

Tell me where it says his PRIMARY responsibility is at the city gates.

In the way of the Internet, this comment thread is about to disappear into oblivion, since it has reached the ancient age of three days old, but let me just say thanks to Rob Dunbar and others who have noted how utterly off topic most of the comments are. Not that these issues are not worth discussing, but they are not what I wrote about. Sigh.

Also, there is a reason that, although this post was prompted by Sarah Palin's selection for VP candidate and thus has her name in the title, my other references are to the Palins, plural. Let the reader understand.

Great article, Andy. I think the Palins are doing great things to raise awareness for families around the country.

Your point about how as fewer people will brave having a Down Syndrome baby, fewer and fewer people will also brave doing it, is scary but rings true. We should be supporting these families.

Also, to the sexist jerks in here who don't think Sarah should be VP just because she's a woman, please realize women have been working like crazy for thousands of years - I think you're just upset because of the importance of this work. Sarah obviously has a loving relationship with her children, and going from governor to vice president isn't going to stop that. And to the man who said her children can become great, she should focus on that - in your mind I don't think they could, because most of them are daughters. I wonder if you think woman are allowed any other purpose in life than having babies - what if a woman can't? Does she have no value then?

Great post, Andy. It's a bummer that so many responses fell sooo far off topic, but then you didn't leave anything to disagree with!

So, since all these off-topic comments are here, I may as well respond to one of them... About the reference to Titus 2, women were urged to be "home working" (not "domestic") in a context in which about 85 percent of industry happened in the home, so partners worked together contributing to the family's economics. Parents also shared the all-day responsibility for raising kids. The Industrial Revolution brought about the "separate spheres" divide, not the Bible. Women were part of the command to have dominion, and men were included in "be fruitful and multiply." If you're thinking of the verse in 1 Tim. where men are told to provide for their families, know that while the English Bible uses four or five male pronouns, the Greek has none ("someone" not "he"). And the context is actually talking more about women caring for the widows in their families than about men being primary breadwinners. Yes, we're influenced by our culture, and that influence has both freed AND constricted women.

I can't believe some of the things I've read here that are so gender biased. Jesus himself was the only male that was a true friend of women. The only reason women were not in positions of importance in biblical times is not because God didn't want them there, its because it was a very patriarchal society and women were treated less than the animals. Only to serve men. I remember that in Genesis we were created to be a help-mate not a servant. I am not ignoring the fact that it will be difficult to raise 5 children with one of them having special needs. But with the right support around her from her husband and family I do believe it can be done. She obviously has been doing it for years and managed just fine. I have seven children and my youngest has severe cerebral palsy, so I know the comittment it takes. I also am a stay at home mother and my eldest daughter too became pregnant unexpectedly in her senior year. She and her husband are now 28 yrs. old and have three children ages 10, 8 and 4 have good jobs and are very happy. So if anyone tries to say the girl got pregnant because her mother wasn't there, they need to think twice. It can happen in any family, and those who say "Not mine" are only fooling themselves or they are just lucky. At any rate, who better to champion the causes of women and children than a women who is living the very life of those she will be representing. God be with you Sarah!

Since Sarah Palin has said that the soldiers that invaded Iraq are doing "God's Work," is it because they are killing the followers of Islam or because President Bush is God?

The Enquirer is set to run a story about Sarah Palin's affair with her husband's former business partner. The McCain campaign has threatened to sue. The business partner just tried to have his divorce files made confidential but the judge denied his request. This lady's life is like a soap opera, but the GOP would have us to believe that she can learn what she needs to be the possible (if McCain dies are is ill) leader of the free world in 60 days of cramming. This woman did not know what the job entailed two weeks ago. Too much is at stake for this foolishness.

This piece on Downs Syndrome children is quite insightful. And it is amazing that the commenters here are so intoxicated with the political talking points that you are completely missing the point that Crouch was making. What a shame.

AS for Sarah Palins insightful remarks too adhereing to what is written in Our Sound Doctrine of God's Laws--this is true. But,we must come to a realization that there are many forms of physical medical allienations that cause us to selfishly want to terminate a fetus--in which we must not. I , myself have a sister who was born with an extreme rare form of spinal bifida--andcrippled from the hips down. Therefore, my mother choose life , as she should have; these precious children have the right to live as all others do with a handicapp.. As for my own distinct awareness of Sarah Palin motives; this for me is a distinct minipulation to tacktic to assume a role for Vice Presidental election: In my opinion....anyone who takes cheap shots from a arieal plane to take down and innocent animals..what one earth would be next for corrup thinking processes-cheating stragedys to acomplish goals she IS NOT quailified for in the least....as well as McCains on going health issues at the age of 74 years.. This could be a blunnder in disquise....as well as a failure approach to a un-qualified Vice Presidential Candidate in the least...sorry.. Religion, and respect for God DOES come first....as well as embracing a philosophy for a grave mistake made.......minipulation......or qualifications: = A Big Differnce.

Will you please use person first language -- don't call our children "Down's kids" or "Down syndrome baby" -- you need to put the child/person first -- my son isn't "a Down's baby" he HAS Down syndrome. You can apply this rule to every descriptor of a disability -- celebral palsy, autism, etc. Thank you.

I admire her very much. She walks the talk. She believes in life and proved it by keeping her child. I want someone whose faith is real and not an election ploy. She quit a 6 figure job because it conflicted with her ethics. I want that in a leader. She called out members of her own party when they were wrong - I want someone to look past party affiliations. She has remained gracious in the face of unjust and cruel attacks made by the other side simply to dispirit her supporters. She took on public life because she wanted to serve - I like that too.

Per Sandy's posting...
Aren't you a bit surprised and concerned that Governor
Palin does not employ person-first language consistently?
What a sad missed opportunity for leading by example. How
can we expect those without children who are disabled to
understand the importance of such language when the
governor refers to her own son as a "special needs child"?