[AllegedNews]

The 17-year old is unmarried, a teen, and pregnant.

I can imagine Republicans all over the country wincing and Democrats smirking.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by AllegedNews 

The 17-year old is unmarried, a teen, and pregnant.

I can imagine Republicans all over the country wincing and Democrats smirking.

Why?

[RAILhead]

Oh nooooeeeeeeeeessssss!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!1

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by AllegedNews 

The 17-year old is unmarried, a teen, and pregnant.

Wow, the 17-year-old is a teen? How outrageous of her! I'll be writing to my MP at once and demand that incidents like this be stopped.

[zerostar]

So I guess abstinence only education does not work for her family? Good thing Palin thinks no rubbers should be at schools. Obviously her daughter wanted her happy bits stimulated, had her mother every taught her how to use protection she probably would not be pregnant (unless she wanted to be but I doubt it) not to mention safer from diseases.

While we are here worrying about every other kid we can't even keep an eye on out own family, sheesh. She was 17 too, how old was the father? hopefully under 18 or that is a whole different issue...

Anyway I 100% agree with Obama, leave the families alone, they are off limits and I hardly doubt this matters much if at all.

[RAILhead]

You mean we should leave it alone like you just did? Hmmm...

[zerostar]

I meant mostly in the media..... and yes I should leave it alone too even tho on the PL here I am not changing anyones mind, debating here is futile but fun, I have no voice or fanbois. We can debate the education or lack there of while leaving the girl out of it (or foolishly calling her fat as has been done on many fora)

[dcmacdaddy]

Yes. Let's leave the families out of it. But we can still use the incident as an example of how to evaluate government policy.

What does it say when a politician who advocates for a specific policy--and is required by law to enforce the same policy due to the candidate's position--cannot even effectively enforce the policy within their own household?
Is the policy flawed in and of itself?
Is the way the policy implemented flawed?
Is the way the government enforces implementation of the policy flawed?
Is the parent flawed for not effectively conveying the value of the policy within the household?

For another example along the same lines, say a politician advocates for children of a certain age to be required to wear bicycle helmets and then their child is injured in an accident because the child was not wearing the bicycle helmet: The same questions above would be equally valid.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes. Let's leave the families out of it. But we can still use the incident as an example of how to evaluate government policy.

What does it say when a politician who advocates for a specific policy--and is required by law to enforce the same policy due to the candidate's position--cannot even effectively enforce the policy within their own household?

I would guess she enforced the policy of encouraging abstinence to her children as a sexual deterrent. Do you have evidence that she did not effectively conveying the value of the policy within the household? You do understand that you can enforce a policy, but that doesn't mean that the desired outcome will be met?

For another example along the same lines, say a politician advocates for children of a certain age to be required to wear bicycle helmets and then their child is injured in an accident because the child was not wearing the bicycle helmet: The same questions above would be equally valid.

Not really a good example. If she tells her child that he must wear the helmet, then as he goes down the street takes it off then crashes, are the negative effects from the policy or the implementation or because a human with freewill decided to act illogically?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not really a good example. If she tells her child that he must wear the helmet, then as he goes down the street takes it off then crashes, are the negative effects from the policy or the implementation or because a human with freewill decided to act illogically?

No but when the policy allows for no other option it is relevant. A better example may be "no bike riding period." because, 1) you could bump your head and 2) bike riding is only for married people

People who oppose this view might say "she is young, dumb and may ride her bike and if she does teach her to wear a helmet or she could #1."

Of course that is simplified but still how I see it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I would guess she enforced the policy of encouraging abstinence to her children as a sexual deterrent. Do you have evidence that she did not effectively convey the value of the policy within the household?

Umm, the fact that her daughter is pregnant is evidence that she did not effectively convey the value of the policy within the household. Sure the daughter has free will but the daughter could have just as easily decided with her free will to not have sex because of the message of abstinence she received from her mother.

So, we have a daughter with free will who chose to have sex even though she lived in a household that was supposed to be strongly, strongly in favor of abstinence. So, either the message was not being conveyed or it was being conveyed but not strongly enough to let the daughter know how important a value it was to her parents.

I do not accept the notion that the parents could have strongly conveyed the idea of the value of abstinence and yet the daughter still decided to have sex. Kids whoa re raised in close-knit, two-parent households with strong values regularly conveyed to the children usualy do not stray form those values. I believe the message was not conveyed strongly enough to the daughter and as a result she wound up pregnant.

[RAILhead]

Man, you sound like an idiot spouting crap like that. Do you have anyone in your family that's even been in that situation? Are they unfit for office because of it?

What a horrible, closed, narrow life you must lead.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Man, you sound like an idiot spouting crap like that. Do you have anyone in your family that's even been in that situation? Are they unfit for office because of it?
*edited out personal attack*

I even pulled up the search and you are the only one saying "unfit" here.

I won't speak for anyone else, but my point was this shows us debate and real life should shape policy, not hope and magical wishes. This is not why she is unfit to be VP or Pres one day. There are plenty of reasons for that.

[Kerrigan]

This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.

[zerostar]

But it has everything to do with her choices. According to Palin her daughter is not mature enough to have sex with a man she chooses, but she is mature enough NOW to marry this man and have a lifetime together all because she was horny and not taught or too guilty to use B.C.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Man, you sound like an idiot spouting crap like that. Do you have anyone in your family that's even been in that situation? Are they unfit for office because of it?

What a horrible, closed, narrow life you must lead.

To whom in this thread are you directing all that hostility and negativity?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

But it has everything to do with her choices. According to Palin her daughter is not mature enough to have sex with a man she chooses, but she is mature enough NOW to marry this man and have a lifetime together all because she was horny and not taught or too guilty to use B.C.

So you're saying that it's necessary for someone be mature in order to face the consequences of their immature choices?

[zerostar]

sure, that

[Dr. Bonedust Miller]

The father of the child should not be pressured to marry the mother. They are only children themselves. He (and his parents) should, however be held financially responsible. It will be a mistake. Give them time to see if it was not just lust.

I wish the child nothing but love and hope as any other child that enters this cold and fright-filled world.

[mduell]

Following in her mama's footsteps (first son born 8 mos after eloping) and reinforcing the conservative base by keeping it.

[stevesnj]

I say put the child up for adoption since the are pro life. Otherwise an abortion would be an option. One less child in the system.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by AllegedNews 

I can imagine ... Democrats smirking.

Can you elaborate why ?

If anything, this should make Palin more attractive to the libruls out there.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Can you elaborate why ?

If anything, this should make Palin more attractive to the libruls out there.

-t

Seriously, if one of her other kids turns out to be a pothead, I'll be totally for her.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

sure, that

So what did you mean? You seem to be saying that just because someone hasn't passed some arbitrary line that they should be protected from the consequences of their actions.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

I say put the child up for adoption since the are pro life. Otherwise an abortion would be an option. One less child in the system.

You realize there are more than two options, right?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

No but when the policy allows for no other option it is relevant. A better example may be "no bike riding period." because, 1) you could bump your head and 2) bike riding is only for married people

People who oppose this view might say "she is young, dumb and may ride her bike and if she does teach her to wear a helmet or she could #1."

Of course that is simplified but still how I see it.

So if you teach about condoms, and a girl doesn't make sure one is used and gets pregnant, then you also have not enforced the policy? I'm pretty sure women who know all about condoms and birth control become pregnant every day of the year.

It would seem hypocritical to expect a standard where teaching about something and not having those taught respond 100% of the time only showing fault on the part of the policy in question. in regards to just the one you disagree with.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, the fact that her daughter is pregnant is evidence that she did not effectively convey the value of the policy within the household. Sure the daughter has free will but the daughter could have just as easily decided with her free will to not have sex because of the message of abstinence she received from her mother.

Or she could have used birth control since she decided against her mother's wishes in the first place. Are you so naive to believe that a 17 year old girl in this day and age doesn't know how babies come about and does not know that there are ways around it if they choose to have sex?

So, we have a daughter with free will who chose to have sex even though she lived in a household that was supposed to be strongly, strongly in favor of abstinence. So, either the message was not being conveyed or it was being conveyed but not strongly enough to let the daughter know how important a value it was to her parents.

LAUGH RIOT!!! You don't have any children, do you? Since the history of time, teenagers have rebelled against their parents and have done stuff against their wishes despite not doing so was in their best interest. If you want to blame a parent for that fact, you're going to be doing a lot of blaming.

Really...is this the best you've got?

I do not accept the notion that the parents could have strongly conveyed the idea of the value of abstinence and yet the daughter still decided to have sex.

I was taught about condoms when I was a teen. DId I always use one? Nope. Was it because it wasn't stressed enough? Nope. It was because I had hormones which were telling me to do the opposite. It doesn't matter if you are teaching condoms or abstinence - teenagers are going to do what they want when it comes down to it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, we have a daughter with free will who chose to have sex even though she lived in a household that was supposed to be strongly, strongly in favor of abstinence. So, either the message was not being conveyed or it was being conveyed but not strongly enough to let the daughter know how important a value it was to her parents.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

LAUGH RIOT!!! You don't have any children, do you?

I do not accept the notion that the parents could have strongly conveyed the idea of the value of abstinence and yet the daughter still decided to have sex.

Nope.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Or she could have used birth control since she decided against her mother's wishes in the first place. Are you so naive to believe that a 17 year old girl in this day and age doesn't know how babies come about and does not know that there are ways around it if they choose to have sex?

Nope. Not naive at all. You just gave me another option in which the daughter could exercise her free will. But your option has the daughter exercising her free will to consciously reject the teachings and values of her family. So, the daughter could exercise her free will to choose to follow the abstinence-only values of the family or she could choose to not follow those same values and have protected sex or she could choose to not follow those same values and have un-protected sex. Two of those three possible choices run counter to this family's stated beliefs regarding sex education. Which again, does not paint this family in the best light for not fully conveying the seriousness of their values to their children.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

LAUGH RIOT!!! You don't have any children, do you? Since the history of time, teenagers have rebelled against their parents and have done stuff against their wishes despite not doing so was in their best interest. If you want to blame a parent for that fact, you're going to be doing a lot of blaming.

Umm, I'm not blaming a parent for children acting in ways that are against the child's own best interests; That is a subject for another debate. I am suggesting the parents might be to blame for holding such a strong value (abstinence until marriage) but not stressing it enough to their children such that the children don't fully internalize the message.

Was the family value of abstinence mentioned every time the topic of sex was discussed? every time questions of marriage and its value were discussed?
Did the parents make specific efforts to explicitly tell their children that they were expected to not have sex until marriage? and that to do so was un-acceptable behavior? behavior contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the family?


We will likely never know the answers to these questions but they provide insight into how parents could provide instruction to their children on a family value as important as sexual activity. And that is what I am getting at. If the Palin family did all these things I would be very surprised if their children did have pre-marital sex. That is why I suggested that in fact they did not do all these things to instruct their children in this value they claim to hold. There are lots of other groups out there with similar intentions regarding pre-marital sex--father-daughter purity groups are just one example and church-sponsored purity contracts are another example--and they seem to have quite a high success rate with having their members actually adhere to the groups beliefs. This goes to show that the message of abstinence-until-marriage can be promoted quite successfully by families. So, why should the ability to promote this family message be seen as any different for the Palins? If they really were advocates for abstinence-only youth sexual practices as much as they claim to be I would fully expect them to succeed and have their children grow up and to remain chaste until marriage. I think they were not as strong as adherents as they claim to be to the message of abstinence-until-marriage.

[besson3c]

abstinence education is a joke, but this applies regardless of the inconsequential Palin story.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I do not accept the notion that the parents could have strongly conveyed the idea of the value of abstinence and yet the daughter still decided to have sex. Kids whoa re raised in close-knit, two-parent households with strong values regularly conveyed to the children usualy do not stray form those values.

Oh man. Are you really being serious?

That has to be one of the worst generalizations I've seen in a while.

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh man. Are you really being serious?

That has to be one of the worst generalizations I've seen in a while.

greg

Nope. I am serious. Note the qualifiers in my statement, though. I am talking about families with strong values who regularly convey those values to their children. Not the kind of families that say they have strong values but then don't perform the actions necessary to ensure those values are conveyed to and adhered to by the kids. Let's take drinking for example. How many parents tell their kids not to drink but don't do the work necessary to make sure their kids attend parties without alcohol. Your kid says he is going to a friend's house for a party and the parent never calls to confirm the existence of the party with the host's parents. Or the parent tells their kids not to do drugs and then doesn't know if their child associates with kids who do drugs.

This is not some idealized fantasy-land I am talking about, either. I am fully aware that for most families the values they seek to convey to their children are observed only partially, if at all. My point is not about the inability of parents to get their kids to adhere to their family's particular set of values. Rather, it is that a family that claims to be strong adherents to a particular set of values does not seem to be doing everything they could/should be doing to make sure those values are fully internalized by their children. This task is quite possible as evidenced by so many abstinence-only groups that do succeed in keeping their children away from sex until marriage. (While it may be a hard task I by no means think it is an impossible task for parents.) What I am doing is pointing out the discrepancy between the claim and the action and suggesting that such a large discrepancy is in fact a sign that the family either a) did not hold the values as strongly as they claimed to hold them or b) did not advocate for or promote them as strongly as they claim to have done.

[goMac]

God forbid we teach BOTH safe sex and abstinence.

Oh right. If kids have sex then they go to hell.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nope. I am serious. Note the qualifiers in my statement, though. I am talking about families with strong values who regularly convey those values to their children. Not the kind of families that say they have strong values but then don't perform the actions necessary to ensure those values are conveyed to and adhered to by the kids. Let's take drinking for example. How many parents tell their kids not to drink but don't do the work necessary to make sure their kids attend parties without alcohol. Your kid says he is going to a friend's house for a party and the parent never calls to confirm the existence of the party with the host's parents. Or the parent tells their kids not to do drugs and then doesn't know if their child associates with kids who do drugs.

This is not some idealized fantasy-land I am talking about, either. I am fully aware that for most families the values they seek to convey to their children are observed only partially, if at all. My point is not about the inability of parents to get their kids to adhere to their family's particular set of values. Rather, it is that a family that claims to be strong adherents to a particular set of values does not seem to be doing everything they could/should be doing to make sure those values are fully internalized by their children. This task is quite possible as evidenced by so many abstinence-only groups that do succeed in keeping their children away from sex until marriage. (While it may be a hard task I by no means think it is an impossible task for parents.) What I am doing is pointing out the discrepancy between the claim and the action and suggesting that such a large discrepancy is in fact a sign that the family either a) did not hold the values as strongly as they claimed to hold them or b) did not advocate for or promote them as strongly as they claim to have done.

You can come from the most grounded and values instilled family imaginable and still make mistakes. Mistakes happen, lapses in judgment happen, and teenage rebellion happens. This could have just as easily been a case of this girl being horny and not thinking carefully about what was going on rather than the girl willfully or unknowingly not taking precautions to prevent pregnancy.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

But it has everything to do with her choices. According to Palin her daughter is not mature enough to have sex with a man she chooses, but she is mature enough NOW to marry this man and have a lifetime together all because she was horny and not taught or too guilty to use B.C.

But actually you are refuting Obama's words, since my post is an Obama quote verbatim. So Obama is incorrect on this issue?

[Chuckit]

I'm with Obama-slash-Kerrigan on this one. Bristol shouldn't have to be a political pawn as well as a teenage mother.

[smacintush]

To be fair to zerostar, Obama probably has every intention of having someone else (bloggers etc.) attack the Palin family so he really isn't disagreeing Obama per se…

Sorry, I'm gonna have to take this back. When I saw Obama say what he said I thought he was very sincere about it.

[smacintush]

Story form 2006:

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

Link.

Keep on generalizing guys.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Story form 2006:


Link.

Keep on generalizing guys.

She only supports contraception in marriage, she only supports abstinence before marriage.

She was one of the leading supporters of Alaska's "Abstinence Only Before Marriage" program.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac 

She only supports contraception in marriage, she only supports abstinence before marriage.

She was one of the leading supporters of Alaska's "Abstinence Only Before Marriage" program.

I'm aware of her position on sex ed, but that says nothing about what she teaches at home. Do you have a link proving that she tried to teach her children not to use contraception?

[lurkalot]

Once again, abstinence-only advocacy fails to prevent teen pregnancy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'm aware of her position on sex ed, but that says nothing about what she teaches at home. Do you have a link proving that she tried to teach her children not to use contraception?

I guess she teaches her kids bondage and S&M.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lurkalot 

Once again, abstinence-only advocacy fails to prevent teen pregnancy.

...same as condoms. There really wasn't anyone I knew in high school who didn't know that condoms would help stop pregnancy. That didn't stop teen girls from becoming pregnant. The idea that teens will listen to teachers and not their hormones is painfully naive.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Nope. I am serious. Note the qualifiers in my statement, though. I am talking about families with strong values who regularly convey those values to their children. Not the kind of families that say they have strong values but then don't perform the actions necessary to ensure those values are conveyed to and adhered to by the kids. Let's take drinking for example. How many parents tell their kids not to drink but don't do the work necessary to make sure their kids attend parties without alcohol. Your kid says he is going to a friend's house for a party and the parent never calls to confirm the existence of the party with the host's parents. Or the parent tells their kids not to do drugs and then doesn't know if their child associates with kids who do drugs.

Now you're stepping into that wonderful land of "parental micromanagement" – in which the teenager gets resentful of their parents always sticking their nose into their business – and which results in said teenager actively going out and doing things their parents are against purely out of rebellion.

Happens in, oh, about 50% of strongly religious households I'd guess.

greg

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Happens in, oh, about 50% of households I'd guess.

greg

Fixed.

[Dakar V]

This will probably be as election changing as Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter was.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

This will probably be as election changing as Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter was.

Yeah. Funny thing about religion & politics. Your (the religious/political) way is the right way, there is no deviation... except when the opposite happens to one of your own, then there's a good reason/excuse why it's not wrong/your fault.

[Kerrigan]

The pregnancy itself won't bother anyone, and may in fact help her with voters. What is going to affect the outcome of the election is the way that the liberal press is overplaying its hand .

As the press unleashes their impotent attacks on Palin's 17 year old daughter, the right has plenty of ammo left unfired. Obama's seeking preferment from terrorist Ayers. Obama cavorting with felons like Rezko. Obama's twisted, racist pastor Wright. These over-eager attempts by the media to attack Palin are not going to have the same effect of the attacks that Republicans have in store for October. It is just a matter of timing, and it will very likely be worse than Swiftboating if they play it right.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yeah. Funny thing about religion & politics. Your (the religious/political) way is the right way, there is no deviation... except when the opposite happens to one of your own, then there's a good reason/excuse why it's not wrong/your fault.

Spare us.

I'd rather try to live to certain standards and hold certain morals -- and fail, than have none at all.

[TETENAL]

Responsible sex is as moral as abstinence.