Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Sarah Palin's Pregnant Daughter


Today I heard the first sneering reference to Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter, Bristol, by a liberal talk show host of all people! Doesn't he realize that his party stands for teenage pregnancy without consequences, and woe betide anyone who would blame such a thing on the parents of that child?

In the liberal world view, parents are hardly responsible for their offspring's failings. In fact, no one is responsible for even their own failings. There is always an excuse, and it is always OK as long as it fits the left-wing agenda.


It will surprise many to know that I do believe that Sarah Palin has some responsibility here. But then, so does her husband. It is each and every parent's responsibility to know where their children are and what they're doing. Of course, when they reach the age of 16, kids are much harder to keep track of. We all know that.

In addition, I hardly believe that Sarah encouraged Bristol to get pregnant. "We believe in family values, dear," she would say. "Now, go get laid and,while you're at it, let me give you some pointers..."

No. I think that no one can believe that scenario for a moment.

So, we're left with the only other conclusion, which is that Sarah Palin did reasonably well in raising her kids, and Bristol decided on her own that she wanted to have sex with a boy. As a result of that choice, she is now pregnant.


Many conservative pundits are roundly congratulating Bristol for her choice to marry Levi, the father of her baby.

Big mistake.

Just because a girl makes a bad choice and gets pregnant as a result of it doesn't mean that she needs to compound that choice by getting married in some attempt to justify it.


If Bristol were my own child, I would encourage her to give the child up for adoption. If she were dead-set on keeping it, I would recommend that she have the baby and raise it on her own, with Levi's help. Perhaps, in a couple of years if they still find that they are compatible with each other, they can marry for the right reasons.


Although he's very handsome (which can spark a girl's interest for all the wrong reasons), Levi has said of himself "I'm a f---in' redneck," and he has stated on his MySpace page that he doesn't want kids. I don't get the impression that Bristol will find that she has much in common with him five years from now, as she stares at him from across the breakfast table.

Can we realistically expect that Bristol will have a successful future when she is merely one child marrying another? Studies show that the human brain is only fully developed at age 25. Do we really think that two 17 year olds can get married, settle down, raise a family and grow old together?

Let's not kid ourselves. It's been done before, but the likelihood of such success is slim-to-none.

In my opinion, the Palin parents should be discouraging Bristol's marriage. Either Bristol isn't thinking clearly and truly wants this, or she's being encouraged to "become an honest woman."


Bristol's already made the choice to be sexually promiscuous. Barack Obama once said that he wouldn't want his daughter to ever be "punished by a baby." Instead, are some conservatives punishing her with marriage?

Raising a child lasts for only 18 years. But a conservative marriage ideally lasts a lifetime. Are we all ready to sentence Bristol to a marriage with another child, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, when neither of them have fully developed yet?


Ed Abbey said...

Whenever I have heard or read the statement from Palin where she states that Bristol WILL marry the father, I cringe, for the reasons you have mentioned. I think the more noble thing would be to raise the child by herself until old enough to know what she wants in a spouse.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Ed, Scary, isn't it? Their insistence that Bristol will marry may be more to their detriment than they realize!

Anonymous said...

I was thinking about that at lunch today how hypocritical it is that the Dems are so bent about this. Aren't they the ones all for women's choice and the right to one's body? Then I thought how the Rep's were hammered for not letting minorities in the administration. Hmmm ...

Colin Powell
Condolesa Rice
The form AG I can't remember his name but he was Hispanic ...

And the Dems chose an old white Catholic guy who is pro-life as the VP running mate.

Hmmm seems like the Dem's have the issues not the Reps.


Anonymous said...

And did no one ever think about adoption?????


The Lazy Iguana said...

Which show? I usually do not listen to such things.

From what I can gather, the point is that the "abstinence only" programs do not work. And the proof? You are looking at it. Here is this supposedly conservative family, against birth control and pro abstinence. And their 17 year old daughter got knocked up.

But this does not stop people from pushing these same programs on everyone else. After all, there is only one solution.

And when the one solution does not work? Well then get married! Then everything will work.

Lets not forget that Bristol will not have to raise the kid all alone. There will be a nanny and housekeepers and so on. There will also be enough money to go around - even if the father has no job. Unlike many families in the same position, I doubt the young couple will face the same strains.

and marriages do not last a "lifetime" for conservatives. Ask Rush about that. How many wives has he gone through? And then there is McCain, who married a beauty queen who waited for him to get out of the POW camp, but when he returned home the beautiful woman he left had been in a car accident. One leg was shorter than the other - or something like that. So he started fooling around with another pretty - and very rich - woman.

And then there was the great Reagan. A pillar of conservative values. Divorced once. Switched parties in 1962. Now a lot of Democrats switched parties in the 60s. But why? What was going on in the 60s that instigated this switch? You know, the south - now solidly Republican - used to be true blue Democrats. Because of that lousy Lincoln and his war of northern aggression. So what was going on in the 60s that changed all this??? of "values" and all....all just so much hot air. All just repeated over and over so that someone might believe them.

Furthermore - which party wanted to make private life issues very public issues? Lets see here.....I just can't remember that.

There also seems to be more to this story. There is the question of the last baby. Whose is it? Palin says it is hers, but there are many questions about this. Family photos pulled from official websites. Bristol missing 5 months of school (supposedly). And then the story about how Palin supposedly flew on a commercial airplane from Texas to Alaska while having what she called minor contractions - so the baby could be born in Alaska.

And then the reports from staff members that were shocked at the announcement, because the governor never looked pregnant.

Every pregnant woman I ever saw was doing the waddle long before cranking one out.

It was supposed to be big news in Alaska, but no one outside of the state cared.

of course, there was a theory about why she would fly while in contractions, and why the staff did not know she was pregnant. She was not. Someone else was. If you into these kinds of theories.

By the way, the photo being shown on TV of Bristol pregnant is over a year old. Supposedly. If you are into such theories.

Now I have not really been following this "news", as I do not consider it "news". News is defined by me as "important shit", and this certainly is not important. But like I said, it was not my idea to make family issues campaign issues.

M@ said...

Oh, no! White people are procreating! Oh NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

(Good looking white people, too!)

daveawayfromhome said...

That ought to read: "In the Republican's spin of the liberal world view, parents are hardly responsible for their offspring's failings. In fact, no one is responsible for even their own failings. There is always an excuse, and it is always OK as long as it fits the left-wing agenda."
Certainly there are extreme elements within the left that try to blame bad behavior on various things rather than poor choices. So what? So does my mother-in-law, and she's a Republican. But those folks are not representative of liberals, just as conservatives are not represented (one hopes) by those who think that the rich are so because God has given them the wealth they "deserve".

The Democratic party does not stand for teenage pregnancy anymore than the Republican party stands for forcing everyone in the nation to become fundamentalist Christians. But hey, guess what? If you're the kind of person who believes that the government has no business poking its nose into one's personal life, especially your sexual life, then the Democratic party is the only place to go (God knows it's not the Republican party, who want to stick their nose into everything but the business practices of major corporations - which doesnt jive very well with the pre-Reagan party of American consevativism). Isnt that odd?

Here's a thought: The problem that is between Democrats and Republicans is frequently not that of ideology - most of the time there's not too much difference (you and I are often in agreement, though I dont technically think of myself as a Democrat). No, the problem is the labels that are pasted onto that ideology (usually at the extreme ends) which are placed there by "leadership" in the interest of maintaining power and accepted uncritically by many, if not most, of the members of the parties. I'm inclined to believe that conservatives, who are more prone to authoritarianism in this country, are also more supportive to that kind of labelling, but both sides fall for it, using the labels without thinking about how well they actually apply to anything, and adding to the divisions which have torn apart the nation and add to the power of those in government, even though they barely do anything that benefits those they govern.

Mr. Grey Ghost said...

Parents can only do so much, kids are going to do what they want anyway. I commend Bristol on her choice to have the baby and get married. It makes much more sense that she made this choice on her own, tho I'm sure that her parents advised her to her married. I've known of many rebellious young teens who ran away from home and/or had abortions on their own because they didn't want to hear any different. Personally I don't think Bristol should be a part of the political debate (I agree with Barack, families should be off limits), but I commend her on her choice.

daveawayfromhome said...

I dont think Bristol should be a part of the debate, either, but rather her mother's choice of sex education and its ineffectiveness, as demonstrated by her own daughter. As long as her daughter stays out of the debate, she should be off limits, but not the thinking about policy towards those like her. She is a convienient and relevant example of a problem, but it shouldnt be towards her personally (though, admittedly, the line of personal and abstract is pretty thin). Her mother and her policies, on the other hand, are fair game.

Actually, when you look at the stuff coming from the liberal side, I dont think anyone is attacking Bristol, just pointing out that her mother's policies have failed with her own daughter. Show me a liberal attacking Bristol herself, and I'll show you an asshole.

DFTF said...

daveaway, are you serious? Do you even remember what it was like to be a teenager? Parents on both sides of the sex ed debate can find themselves with pregnant teenagers. Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control, and the only way for a parent to be 100% certain their child won't get pregnant is to lock them in the closet.

Other than that sometimes life gets messy, even for the best of families.

Bee Repartee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bee Repartee said...

I've always said that it's as smart of a decision to get married because of a baby as it is to have a baby because of a marriage.

If the 'happy couple' was planning on marrying before pregnancy, I have no issue otherwise it's nothing short of a shotgun wedding. She IS 17. Who knows..

And for the record, I like Palin, too.

daveawayfromhome said...

"Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control, and the only way for a parent to be 100% certain their child won't get pregnant is to lock them in the closet."

Yes, abstinence is the only 100% effective measure of birth control, but to make sex ed abstinence-only is rather like having a gun safety class where a guy steps up and says "guns are dangerous, so dont point them at anyone", then sends everyone home. There is no safety in ignorance, however comfy it may be.

And yes, parents on both sides of the sex ed debate can find themselves with pregnant teenagers, but I wont ask forgiveness when I criticize the parents on the side of the debate that advocated ignorance and preaching, rather than information (feel free to add preaching if you want, but for God's sake give them the info!). Nor will I ask forgiveness for my schedenfreude at seeing a social conservative caught in a trap of the ignorance of their own making (or would you suggest that young Bristol had all the information she needed when deciding to have sex?).

So now we're faced with the ironic sight of Republicans practically feting a pregnant teenager, despite decades of treating pregnant teens (usually far less well connected and supported) less like heroes for the decision to keep their babies, and more like lepers for their decision to have sex and get pregnant in the first place.

DFTF said...

I'm a conservative, and I'm a Christian, and my children have always had all the facts about sex that they need. Just because one doesn't think it is the business of the schools to be handing out condoms it doesn't mean the children of those people are ignorant. Your assumption that Palin's teenager didn't have the facts is based on your own bias.

daveawayfromhome said...

My problem is not with Christian conservatives wanting to teach their children as they see fit, but with them wanting to teach my children as they see fit. Instead of trying to get sex-ed out of schools, where at least some parents want it to be taught (along with other subjects), why not turn your efforts towards making sure that your children are not required to attend such classes. In this manner you will achieve your goal of making your child's sex-ed the business of your family and avoid charges of trying to legislate the morality of others.
But then, we both know that this is not the goal of the Republican party. What conservative Christians do not seem to understand (or, perhaps, just dont care about) is that liberals dont want their children taught fundamentalist values any more than you seem to want your children taught liberal values.
Maybe instead of fighting so much about whose set of values gets taught exclusively, both sides ought to battle to have both sets taught, and make sure that we have the option of not having our children learn one or the other. This would not only save a lot of antagonism, but would probably strengthen our schools as it might encourage the abandonment of our current one-size-fits-all approach.

At the same time, if you're not going to be willing for your children to learn the things that are taught in a mainstream education (and accepted by much of the world, whatever their religion may be), dont be surprised when they get out into the great, wide world and find themselves at a disadvantage.

exMI said...

Ah but dave, with one simple substitution your problem with the Christian conservatives becomes their problem with liberal whatevers...

My problem is not with *liberal democrats* wanting to teach their children as they see fit, but with them wanting to teach my children as they see fit.....

So the answer is to not force this stuff on the public schools which have enough stuff that they SHOULD be teaching but let parents teach their own kids.

daveawayfromhome said...

I dont see anyone forcing anything on public schools, I see conservatives objecting to things already there. Sex Ed? Already there. Evolution? Already there. If you dont want your kids to learn it, work on getting them out, not the subject itself.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Great discussion, everyone! I have nothing really to contribute (I guess I said everything I had to say in the post this time) but I've been watching it. Thanks for taking the time to really hash this out.

exMI said...

The only reason sex ed is in the public schools is because political forces have forced it there. Often over the screaming protests of the parents.
As to evolution, I have no problem with it. Scientifically it works.

daveawayfromhome said...

So does sex-ed.

exMI said...

True. but Sex ed is a lifestyle choice. Not science curriculum. That is something parents have an OBLIGATION to teach. Not schools.

but this is getting us no where. If you cant see the difference between the subjects and the similarities between your concerns and the conservatives concerns than really there is no point in continuing to ring around this rosy.