I’ll only point out one discrepancy has left me scratching my head. Sarah Palin is anti-choice and her decision to continue her preganancy with her son Trig, after discovering he had Down’s Syndrome, is the most personal and public demonstration of this fundamental belief we’ve seen to date.
I certainly would never call this decision into question. By supporting a woman’s right to choose, I believe each of us hopes to make the best decision possible to create a healthy, supportive environment for ourselves and our children. Trig looks like a happy, well loved child who is adored by his parents.
What I can’t figure out is how a woman who is this devoted to the sancity of life could simultatiously prepare another son for war. If elected, this mother won’t be in the subjective position of most parents who watch at home — she’ll be in an active role and could quite possibly decide which children in the war are put in harm’s way, soldiers and civilians.
I’m left wondering how a woman could so avidly seek to protect one child’s life, and then pursue a policy in which another child could be put directly at risk.
For me, this is a profound disconnect. Is this what it means to be “pro-life?”