Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.
Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.
An umarried, pregnant 17 year old daughter (you don't mention the circumstances, it could be rape, it could be incest, it could be just those gosh darn 6 month long Arctic circle nights) is somehow worse than diddling Monica on the presidential desk?
At least we know that now, not after we elect the bozo.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
Many parents have done their best to instill certain values into their children and have had some "wander off the reservation" anyway.
It does not detract from Palin in any way shape or form.
At least she decided to get married and have the baby instead of just killing it like so many on the left would prefer.
More than anything, I think this merely highlights the failure that "Abstinence" movement from a praciticality stnadpoint. Hormones can defeat even the most strenuous of upbringings.
I don't see this as a failure on Ms. Palin's part, or even a character flaw on her child's part, but an unfortunate side affect of the lack of available contraception. That immature teenagers should not be having sex is almost beside the point when these tragic occurances happen. Dealing with the emotional impact of underage sex is something else, but these consequences can be prevented if the conservatives embrace the utility of contraception and stop believing religion can win over teenage hormonal imbalance.
jezeus wrote: Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.
Well, I don't think anyone is PRO-Abortion.
To me, this whole situation just makes her more of a real-life everyday person rather than some hoity toity (sp?) better-than-thou politician.
I mean, how many millions of unwed, teenage mothers are there out there?
integraguy wrote: Great, today, a day when almost no one is watching the news, we find out that the Republican VP wannabe has an unmarried, pregnant, 17 year old daughter. I imagine this will be "forgiven" by Evangelicals, since Ms. Pallin (sp?) is pro-choice.
Please explain why we should hold Ms Palin's daughter's action as a basis for voting for or against the prospective VP. I must have missed something but wouldn't the actions of the said candidate mean more than another person's actions. In other words WTF are you stupid.
aussiesmg wrote:integraguy wrote: Great, today, a day when almost no one is watching the news, we find out that the Republican VP wannabe has an unmarried, pregnant, 17 year old daughter. I imagine this will be "forgiven" by Evangelicals, since Ms. Pallin (sp?) is pro-choice.Please explain why we should hold Ms Palin's daughter's action as a basis for voting for or against the prospective VP. I must have missed something but wouldn't the actions of the said candidate mean more than another person's actions. In other words WTF are you stupid.
+1
MGAMGB wrote: I'll bet George Bush is the father. He's responsible for everything.
King Bush the progenitor of everything good and bad strikes again!
Hormones can defeat even the most strenuous of upbringings.
Please, please tell me you are kidding me?
Everybody has a choice insert red pill blue pill joke here In the end she decided she wanted to go have some fun. Not her hormones.
jezeus wrote: Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.
Anti-choice
Gimp wrote:jezeus wrote: Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.Anti-choice
The term is pro-life.
It's loaded semantics all around!
integraguy wrote: Great, today, a day when almost no one is watching the news, we find out that the Republican VP wannabe has an unmarried, pregnant, 17 year old daughter. I imagine this will be "forgiven" by Evangelicals, since Ms. Pallin (sp?) is pro-choice. It's amazing some of the things Republican supporters will not hold against a candidate, for any office, while claiming they couldn't possibly vote for candidate X because that candidate disagrees with their position on 1 or 2 topics. The late night talk show hosts have turned the GOP into a running joke due to their different candidates proclivity to have sex with folks other than their spouses. What's Jay gonna say when he hears about this?
If you started following the "news" instead of watching late-night talk shows, you might realize there's more to the issue(s) than pandering humorists suggest.
A little weather disturbance in the Gulf-states area, the Republican convention and even the younger Ms. Palin seem to have some exposure, i.e., TV is not just for entertainment.
HiTempguy wrote:Hormones can defeat even the most strenuous of upbringings.Please, please tell me you are kidding me? Everybody has a choice *insert red pill blue pill joke here* In the end she decided she wanted to go have some fun. Not her hormones.
I am not joking in the slightest.
I don't define choice the same way that conservatives define it and sex is one of those risk/reward decisions that is programmed inately to result in more humans. That we resist it and have societal restrictions to reduce it happening between certain people is impressive in itself. If you wish to argue about it, atleast understand this is how I see it and I invite you to convince me that one of the most powerful urges in our biology is as easy to overcome as teaching your child not to steal, lie or hurt others...
Maybe she tried to prevent it by using contraceptives, but I'm basing my argument on the assumption that she did not have access or teaching of how to use them, so when she and her boyfriend were escalating the relationship, she made the risky decision to go for it and hope nothing happened. What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work. The religious arguement is outweighed by the utilitarian aspect of mitigation IMO.
I don't see any problem with giving my children the advice they need to avoid making poor choices, but also provide them with the tools they need to mitigate those choices. There is no escalation up from sex as far as risk is concerned. I'd rather have them suffer the emotional stress of poor relationships than both the emotional and financial and societal stress of a poor relationship resulting in a child.
Osterkraut wrote:Gimp wrote:The term is pro-life. It's loaded semantics all around!jezeus wrote: Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.Anti-choice
Your term is.... not mine.
You CAN be "pro-choice" and "pro-life". It's a choice. Get it?
Really guys, a pregnant 17-year old isn't really all that big a deal. Odds are that more of our great-grandmothers were less than 17 than more than 17 when they had their first child.
Aside from that lack of importance and relevance to anything, it's not really any of our business.
And I'm with the Gimp entirely on that one, pro-choice and pro-life are in no way mutualyy exclusive. The option may in no way be the right one for me, but it's not my place to make the decision for anyone else.
HiTempguy wrote: Everybody has a choice *insert red pill blue pill joke here* In the end she decided she wanted to go have some fun. Not her hormones.
I dunno. I remember my teen years. The time and effort I expended on getting laid was pretty substantial, and I was "raised right". Hormones are powerful things.
OTOH, I didn't get anyone pregnant. That I know of.
Gimp wrote:Osterkraut wrote:Your term is.... not mine. You CAN be "pro-choice" and "pro-life". It's a choice. Get it?Gimp wrote:The term is pro-life. It's loaded semantics all around!jezeus wrote: Shes not pro-choice, she is anti-abortion.Anti-choice
You said anti-choice. That's a loaded statement all around, too. I mean, who doesn't like choices? Who wants to kill feti?
Why isn't veal "tortured baby cow meat"?
(Insert drilling in Alaska joke here)
oldopelguy wrote: Really guys, a pregnant 17-year old isn't really all that big a deal. Odds are that more of our great-grandmothers were less than 17 than more than 17 when they had their first child. Aside from that lack of importance and relevance to anything, it's not really any of our business. And I'm with the Gimp entirely on that one, pro-choice and pro-life are in no way mutualyy exclusive. The option may in no way be the right one for me, but it's not my place to make the decision for anyone else.
You're mostly right in that if she was 18 and with child, the attention level would be practically nil...and if she was a democrats child with child, people would say she was unlucky and move on. However, sex has been politicized by the right in ways that make people react harshly when the right (and those related to those on the right) screw up from their very strict doctrine. At some point, we stop speaking about Ms. Palin's daughter and we start talking about Ms. Palin's policy's that might come from this experience. Is she privately telling her children to practice contraception at the very least or is she too religious to bare the thought that telling her children about it would be against god's will and might be enticing them to engage in sex? How would that translate to what she said once in office? This event has merely focused a laser beam on one aspect of her public life and while democrats may be hootin and hollerin over this apparent "republican" hypocrisy, there is information to gain from this.
Unfortunately, most people will focus on the individuals and not the greater point.
MGAMGB,
Its "abstinance only" that is couched in religion, and that's mainly because its been the religious wing of the conservative party that's promoted it most heavily. The religious right haven't tried to promote it as anything other than the right and only thing to do because thats the only moral solution. The day I hear an argument from someone for abstinance only that doesn't eventually fall back on God, I'll disassociate it.
This is mudslinging though, just like the rest of politics. I chose to see beyond the hypocrisy to the potential real issue, but I doubt it will really get that far anywhere else.
GregTivo wrote: I am not joking in the slightest. I don't define choice the same way that conservatives define it and sex is one of those risk/reward decisions that is programmed inately to result in more humans. That we resist it and have societal restrictions to reduce it happening between certain people is impressive in itself. If you wish to argue about it, atleast understand this is how I see it and I invite you to convince me that one of the most powerful urges in our biology is as easy to overcome as teaching your child not to steal, lie or hurt others... Maybe she tried to prevent it by using contraceptives, but I'm basing my argument on the assumption that she did not have access or teaching of how to use them, so when she and her boyfriend were escalating the relationship, she made the risky decision to go for it and hope nothing happened. What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work. The religious arguement is outweighed by the utilitarian aspect of mitigation IMO. I don't see any problem with giving my children the advice they need to avoid making poor choices, but also provide them with the tools they need to mitigate those choices. There is no escalation up from sex as far as risk is concerned. I'd rather have them suffer the emotional stress of poor relationships than both the emotional and financial and societal stress of a poor relationship resulting in a child.
I dunno. I remember my teen years. The time and effort I expended on getting laid was pretty substantial, and I was "raised right". Hormones are powerful things.
Well I don't even have to remember my teen years. I just "exited" them a month ago ;)
I never said there was anything wrong with sex (had a very serious relationship for the past 2 years, I would consider myself mature for my age, blah blah blah). Don't get the issues mixed up. I said there is a problem with someone saying a 17 y.o should not have to act responsibly for themselves and practice safe sex. I'm pretttty sure there is a cornerstore in her town that her boyfriend could get condoms from. Also pretty sure they could figure out how to use them. 17 y.o's are not stupid and can think for themselves (no matter what their parents have indoctrinated them with if that is EVEN the case). Hell, 15 y.o's are not stupid. If you think otherwise then I don't really know what to say. I approach this whole thing from the standpoint hoping she DID use some sort of contraceptive and it was an unfortunate accident. Which in this case, abstinence would have been the best choice. I do not agree with abstinence however because of exactly what you say (people like to screw)! But I believe in personal responsibility. And there are only two people to blame in this and that is the girl and her boyfriend.
You want proof? Well, I could divulge my whole sex-life on GRM but I don't really believe that it would be appropriate. The proof that I have are couples who did ABSTAIN from sex until they were actually ready and seriously thought about it (not even until marriage, now that truly takes some commitment). These couples also tended to have more stable/mature relationships (edit-which I find to be the case in relationships were abstinence is practiced because the relationship is more about the people rather than the sex). And yes this was back when I was 18/19. So I will argue choice. She had a choice and she made the wrong one knowing full well the consequences. So she's gotta deal.
And after this long-winded soapbox rant, I am not refering to abstinence in the sense of "until marriage". As some have said, the more left people would like everyone to believe it is a religious issue. I would wager that alot of people would agree on abstaining for a while rather then just jumping in, which unfortunatley most young adults tend to do. I doubt I have moved your stance, but at least you now may understand mine!
After we reduce government spending, have a viable energy plan, and get a viable foreign policy, then and only then will I give a crap about a politician's teenager daughter.
Why would you care about it even then? 
Seriously, why would anyone give a flying crap about any of this drivel?
If we "cared" about this young woman, if we had a shred of decency left, would we splash her private situation all over every form of media and pass judgements about her and how she was raised? Can we really sit on a moral high ground while raking a child over the political coals? No. It is obvious that we don't care. Give us your dirty laundry. All of it.
Age of consent in Alaska is 16....she's not "underage". So what's the big freakin deal? No laws were broken. The Haterade bottle's gonna run dry quick on this one.
66gg1tnc wrote: Age of consent in Alaska is 16....she's not "underage". So what's the big freakin deal? No laws were broken. The Haterade bottle's gonna run dry quick on this one.
Yeah, it will blow over. Of course, there are those who just plain hate who will treat this like the Bush daughters' party habits. (Where's the rolleyes emoticon when you need it?) I feel for the kid, she will have to grow up in one freakin' big hurry and that's what I have told my 11 year old daughter. I just hope it sinks in.
We should just treat this like Obama is- it's none of our business, and is off the table IRT the VP candidate.
You'll need to log in to post.
