Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is an issue of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, not when the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we can, but if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, then at least employ it properly.
> > 1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was born April [20], 1989.
> > 2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped.
> > 3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy.
> > 4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, > > 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception.
> > 5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin eloped > > four weeks after her son's conception.
> > 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four > > weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents > > eloped.
> Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is an issue > of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, not when > the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we can, but > if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, then at > least employ it properly.
Just FYI: That wasn't my employment of the term. That was from the site I linked to. I should have been clearer about that and I apologize.
I would have called it pre-marital conception.
Is Sarah Palin covering for her daughter?
(This I *did* write:)
I didn't believe it at first... but I've done just a bit of digging.
Gov. Palin did not announce "her" pregnancy until a month before the baby was born. (She'd have been seven months pregnant when she announced this, and apparently hiding it VERY well.)
Gov. Palin was in Texas when "her" water broke, a month early. While experiencing a high-risk pregnancy (her own age, carrying a Down Syndrome baby, and having signs of impending delivery a month early), she DECIDED TO FLY TO ALASKA to have "her" baby in a town of 4,500 people.
Apparently, the flight crew didn't notice that a woman about to deliver was boarding their plane.
Palin did not take maternity leave. That in itself is a bit odd when considering her family values. But it is all the more troubling since this pre-term baby has Down Syndrome.
Of course, this evidence is circumstantial. I'd like to see the birth certificate. And if it's shown that she IS the mother, I'd like to see a genetic test (since she's Governor of the state in which "she" gave birth).
>> > 1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was born April [20], 1989.
>> > 2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped.
>> > 3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy.
>> > 4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, >> > 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception.
>> > 5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin eloped >> > four weeks after her son's conception.
>> > 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four >> > weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents >> > eloped.
>> Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is >> an is > sue >> of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, >> not w > hen >> the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we >> can, b > ut >> if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, >> then at least employ it properly.
> Just FYI: That wasn't my employment of the term. That was from the > site I linked to. I should have been clearer about that and I > apologize.
> I would have called it pre-marital conception.
> Is Sarah Palin covering for her daughter?
> (This I *did* write:)
> I didn't believe it at first... but I've done just a bit of digging.
> Gov. Palin did not announce "her" pregnancy until a month before the > baby was born. (She'd have been seven months pregnant when she > announced this, and apparently hiding it VERY well.)
> Gov. Palin was in Texas when "her" water broke, a month early. While > experiencing a high-risk pregnancy (her own age, carrying a Down > Syndrome baby, and having signs of impending delivery a month early), > she DECIDED TO FLY TO ALASKA to have "her" baby in a town of 4,500 > people.
> Apparently, the flight crew didn't notice that a woman about to > deliver was boarding their plane.
> Palin did not take maternity leave. That in itself is a bit odd when > considering her family values. But it is all the more troubling since > this pre-term baby has Down Syndrome.
> Of course, this evidence is circumstantial. I'd like to see the birth > certificate. And if it's shown that she IS the mother, I'd like to see > a genetic test (since she's Governor of the state in which "she" gave > birth).
===================== Here is a link to photos of Sara Palin when she WAS pregnant and to another pic when she would have been 7 months pregnant with the child she claims to have given birth to 5 months ago.
As you can clearly see ... Sara Palin blows up like a blimp when she is pregnant. There is no way she could have stood on the stage and given a speech hours before giving birth and no one could tell she was pregnant.
Nor could she have flown on a commercial aircraft without the stewardesses seeing that she was pregnant.
And, supposedly, her water had even broke and she was flying back home fast to have the baby. Riiigggghhhtttt.
Of course, a paternity test might put the issue to rest ... unless daddy knocked up his daughter ....
>>>> 1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was born April [20], 1989. >>>> 2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped. >>>> 3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy. >>>> 4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, >>>> 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception. >>>> 5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin eloped >>>> four weeks after her son's conception. >>>> 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four >>>> weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents >>>> eloped. >>>> FROM: >>>> http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-and-children-conceived >>>> ... >>> Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is >>> an is >> sue >>> of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, >>> not w >> hen >>> the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we >>> can, b >> ut >>> if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, >>> then at least employ it properly. >> Just FYI: That wasn't my employment of the term. That was from the >> site I linked to. I should have been clearer about that and I >> apologize.
>> I would have called it pre-marital conception.
>> Is Sarah Palin covering for her daughter?
>> (This I *did* write:)
>> I didn't believe it at first... but I've done just a bit of digging.
>> Gov. Palin did not announce "her" pregnancy until a month before the >> baby was born. (She'd have been seven months pregnant when she >> announced this, and apparently hiding it VERY well.)
>> Gov. Palin was in Texas when "her" water broke, a month early. While >> experiencing a high-risk pregnancy (her own age, carrying a Down >> Syndrome baby, and having signs of impending delivery a month early), >> she DECIDED TO FLY TO ALASKA to have "her" baby in a town of 4,500 >> people.
>> Apparently, the flight crew didn't notice that a woman about to >> deliver was boarding their plane.
>> Palin did not take maternity leave. That in itself is a bit odd when >> considering her family values. But it is all the more troubling since >> this pre-term baby has Down Syndrome.
>> Of course, this evidence is circumstantial. I'd like to see the birth >> certificate. And if it's shown that she IS the mother, I'd like to see >> a genetic test (since she's Governor of the state in which "she" gave >> birth).
> ===================== > Here is a link to photos of Sara Palin when she WAS pregnant and to > another pic when she would have been 7 months pregnant with the child she > claims to have given birth to 5 months ago.
> As you can clearly see ... Sara Palin blows up like a blimp when she is > pregnant. There is no way she could have stood on the stage and given a > speech hours before giving birth and no one could tell she was pregnant.
> Nor could she have flown on a commercial aircraft without the > stewardesses seeing that she was pregnant.
> And, supposedly, her water had even broke and she was flying back home > fast to have the baby. Riiigggghhhtttt.
> Of course, a paternity test might put the issue to rest ... unless daddy > knocked up his daughter ....
Oh but don't forget that today they are coming out saying that it is impossible because her daughter is 5 months pregnant... How convent is that.
>>>>> 1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was born April [20], >>>>> 1989. 2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped. >>>>> 3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy. >>>>> 4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, >>>>> 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception. >>>>> 5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin >>>>> eloped four weeks after her son's conception. >>>>> 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four >>>>> weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents >>>>> eloped. >>>>> FROM: >>>>> http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-and-children-conceiv >>>>> ed ... >>>> Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is >>>> an is >>> sue >>>> of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, >>>> not w >>> hen >>>> the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we >>>> can, b >>> ut >>>> if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, >>>> then at least employ it properly. >>> Just FYI: That wasn't my employment of the term. That was from the >>> site I linked to. I should have been clearer about that and I >>> apologize.
>>> I would have called it pre-marital conception.
>>> Is Sarah Palin covering for her daughter?
>>> (This I *did* write:)
>>> I didn't believe it at first... but I've done just a bit of digging.
>>> Gov. Palin did not announce "her" pregnancy until a month before the >>> baby was born. (She'd have been seven months pregnant when she >>> announced this, and apparently hiding it VERY well.)
>>> Gov. Palin was in Texas when "her" water broke, a month early. While >>> experiencing a high-risk pregnancy (her own age, carrying a Down >>> Syndrome baby, and having signs of impending delivery a month >>> early), she DECIDED TO FLY TO ALASKA to have "her" baby in a town of >>> 4,500 people.
>>> Apparently, the flight crew didn't notice that a woman about to >>> deliver was boarding their plane.
>>> Palin did not take maternity leave. That in itself is a bit odd >>> when considering her family values. But it is all the more >>> troubling since this pre-term baby has Down Syndrome.
>>> Of course, this evidence is circumstantial. I'd like to see the >>> birth certificate. And if it's shown that she IS the mother, I'd >>> like to see a genetic test (since she's Governor of the state in >>> which "she" gave birth).
>> ===================== >> Here is a link to photos of Sara Palin when she WAS pregnant and to >> another pic when she would have been 7 months pregnant with the child >> she claims to have given birth to 5 months ago.
>> As you can clearly see ... Sara Palin blows up like a blimp when she >> is pregnant. There is no way she could have stood on the stage and >> given a speech hours before giving birth and no one could tell she >> was pregnant.
>> Nor could she have flown on a commercial aircraft without the >> stewardesses seeing that she was pregnant.
>> And, supposedly, her water had even broke and she was flying back >> home fast to have the baby. Riiigggghhhtttt.
>> Of course, a paternity test might put the issue to rest ... unless >> daddy knocked up his daughter ....
> Oh but don't forget that today they are coming out saying that it is > impossible because her daughter is 5 months pregnant... > How convent is that.
============ It's not at all unusual for a woman to get pregnant again immediately after giving birth..a week or two to let the stitches heal a bit and some guys will hit it right away.
> It's not at all unusual for a woman to get pregnant again immediately > after giving birth..a week or two to let the stitches heal a bit and some > guys will hit it right away.
Try again, beyond the fact that it would be extremely unusual, if not entirely unprecedented for a woman to even ovulate for several months after a delivery. According to the timeline given, she would have had to have gotten pregnant at least two weeks prior to giving birth to the first child, and that is not only unprecedented, it is physically impossible.
Emerson Wainwright wrote: > 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four > weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents > eloped.
Well, she believes that all life is sacred, yes? Had they not eloped, someone would have been killed. So, eloping was the right thing to do...
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"Never get married until you have kissed the Blarney Stone. Praising a woman before marriage is a matter of inclination. But praising one after you marry her is a matter of necessity -- and personal safety." -- Dorothy Dix
Trakar wrote: > Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is an issue > of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, not when > the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we can, but > if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, then at > least employ it properly.
Only a lawyer could to try to make the faithful believe that out-of-wedlock sex can be reasonable.
-- And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Malcolm: "Ghaah!!! Augh!! It can't be ethical to cause a patient this much pain."
Dr. Flox: "It's unethical to *harm* a patient, I can inflict as much pain as I like."
On Sep 1, 11:41 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thighi...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> Emerson Wainwright wrote: > > 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four > > weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents > > eloped.
> Well, she believes that all life is sacred, yes? Had they not eloped, someone would have > been killed. So, eloping was the right thing to do...
Absolutely.
But it means she was pregnant when she got married.
Which is a big no-no in the "family values" party.
(Of course, now we are seeing that this seems to run in the family.)
> > > 1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was born April [20], 1989.
> > > 2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped.
> > > 3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy.
> > > 4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, > > > 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception.
> > > 5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin eloped > > > four weeks after her son's conception.
> > > 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four > > > weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents > > > eloped.
> > Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is an issue > > of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, not when > > the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we can, but > > if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, then at > > least employ it properly.
> Just FYI: That wasn't my employment of the term. That was from the > site I linked to. I should have been clearer about that and I > apologize.
> I would have called it pre-marital conception.
> Is Sarah Palin covering for her daughter?
> (This I *did* write:)
> I didn't believe it at first... but I've done just a bit of digging.
> Gov. Palin did not announce "her" pregnancy until a month before the > baby was born. (She'd have been seven months pregnant when she > announced this, and apparently hiding it VERY well.)
> Gov. Palin was in Texas when "her" water broke, a month early. While > experiencing a high-risk pregnancy (her own age, carrying a Down > Syndrome baby, and having signs of impending delivery a month early), > she DECIDED TO FLY TO ALASKA to have "her" baby in a town of 4,500 > people.
> Apparently, the flight crew didn't notice that a woman about to > deliver was boarding their plane.
> Palin did not take maternity leave. That in itself is a bit odd when > considering her family values. But it is all the more troubling since > this pre-term baby has Down Syndrome.
> Of course, this evidence is circumstantial. I'd like to see the birth > certificate. And if it's shown that she IS the mother, I'd like to see > a genetic test (since she's Governor of the state in which "she" gave > birth).
Stop the presses! A woman was pregnant prior to getting married!! I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the charge that her husband has probably masturbated, too.
> > It's not at all unusual for a woman to get pregnant again immediately > > after giving birth..a week or two to let the stitches heal a bit and some > > guys will hit it right away.
> Try again, beyond the fact that it would be extremely unusual, if not > entirely unprecedented for a woman to even ovulate for several months after > a delivery.
Wow. That's an old wives' tale. And her belief in it is probably why the poor kid is pregnant again.
> > > > 1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was born April [20], 1989.
> > > > 2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped.
> > > > 3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy.
> > > > 4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, > > > > 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception.
> > > > 5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin eloped > > > > four weeks after her son's conception.
> > > > 6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four > > > > weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents > > > > eloped.
> > > Interesting considerations but as far as "legitimacy" goes, that is an issue > > > of whether or not the parents were married when the child was born, not when > > > the child was conceived. If you want to talk about moral issues we can, but > > > if you are going to toss about the legalistic term of legitimacy, then at > > > least employ it properly.
> > Just FYI: That wasn't my employment of the term. That was from the > > site I linked to. I should have been clearer about that and I > > apologize.
> > I would have called it pre-marital conception.
> > Is Sarah Palin covering for her daughter?
> > (This I *did* write:)
> > I didn't believe it at first... but I've done just a bit of digging.
> > Gov. Palin did not announce "her" pregnancy until a month before the > > baby was born. (She'd have been seven months pregnant when she > > announced this, and apparently hiding it VERY well.)
> > Gov. Palin was in Texas when "her" water broke, a month early. While > > experiencing a high-risk pregnancy (her own age, carrying a Down > > Syndrome baby, and having signs of impending delivery a month early), > > she DECIDED TO FLY TO ALASKA to have "her" baby in a town of 4,500 > > people.
> > Apparently, the flight crew didn't notice that a woman about to > > deliver was boarding their plane.
> > Palin did not take maternity leave. That in itself is a bit odd when > > considering her family values. But it is all the more troubling since > > this pre-term baby has Down Syndrome.
> > Of course, this evidence is circumstantial. I'd like to see the birth > > certificate. And if it's shown that she IS the mother, I'd like to see > > a genetic test (since she's Governor of the state in which "she" gave > > birth).
> Stop the presses! A woman was pregnant prior to getting married!!
You people seem always to not understand the concept of hypocrisy.
It amazes us. It really does.
We don't CARE that she was pregnant before she got married! It's the PEOPLE she wants to VOTE for her who care! The social conservatives! The evangelicals! THEY CARE! As for ME, I just like to keep them informed that they're considering voting for a person who is not only immoral, but who LIES about being immoral.
>> > It's not at all unusual for a woman to get pregnant again >> > immediately after giving birth..a week or two to let the stitches >> > heal a bit and so > me >> > guys will hit it right away.
>> Try again, beyond the fact that it would be extremely unusual, if not >> entirely unprecedented for a woman to even ovulate for several months >> aft > er >> a delivery.
> Wow. That's an old wives' tale. And her belief in it is probably why > the poor kid is pregnant again.
============ Yes, it is not unusual for a woman to give birth 10 months apart.
Tonight they said the daughter is " about " 5 months pregnant. If she is, in fact, only 4 months ... it could easily be a second pregnancy.
But the religious right winger will probably be declaring it another virgin birth, rather than admit the truth.
