The parallel is that Boebert is pushing anti-trans and anti-drag legislation, even though trans folks and drag queens are not harmful to children, while simultaneously pushing anti-sex-ed legislations, which is harmful to children. And, all in the name of protecting children.
And then her own child promptly demonstrates that a lack of sex ed can be harmful to kids. So, people here are calling her out for that (not calling her son or his girlfriend out).
And, she does all that while claiming to be hyper-Christian, even though I’m pretty sure her god would frown upon all the pre-marital sex her son got up to, so she’s doing a shitty job raising her kid the way that she’s trying to impose on the rest of us.
No I wouldn’t treat it like a story and go gossiping about it.
My quiet opinion of non-surprise wouldn’t be from morally judging anyone. If anything, if would actually be the opposite. I don’t assume Christian teens have less sex than anyone else. If a teen is having sex, pregnancy is a big risk. Since my in-laws are against abortion, one their kids getting pregnant will not be surprising.
Aside from the fact different people can have different opinions about what harms kids (or not), this still doesn’t mean that an argument for one must extend to the other. These issues couldn’t be more apples and oranges.
Except of course, that she is trying to use the power of the government to tell you how to raise your kids.
It’s not about differing opinions when CPS comes to your house to take away your children because you aren’t raising them the way Boebert says that you should.
So, you would tell no one, it would be a secret you would take to your grave, never crossing your lips.
Christians seem to think that the have less sex, which is why they don’t need to learn about birth control. You do realize that they teach abstinence only education unironically, right? That they are so very wrong about this is why they shouldn’t be telling others how to raise their kids.
This is a false restatement of what I said. I suggest that, quite obviously, if she’s having teen pregnancies in her own family, then she’s no kind of authority on how to prevent that.
This is actually a false choice though. Nobody’s suggesting that any approach is entirely foolproof, only that doing more is better than doing less. The Republican position (Boebert’s position) is to do nothing. Trying and failing is defensible. Doing nothing and failing is indefensible.
It’s been directly pointed out to you that this is a false restatement of my position and everyone else’s in this thread. Let me correctly restate it for you so that you won’t be confused anymore: teenage pregnancies are not character failure of the parent. They’re not a character failure of anyone. Only Republicans suggest that this is the case, and this standard changes the instant it happens to their family. I do not hold their standard nor do I endorse it. The pregnancy is not the character failure. The failure is the double standard, which is what this thread is actually about.
Kindly do not suggest again that I or anyone else believes teenage pregnancy (in itself) to be any kind of character failure. This has now been explicitly clarified for you multiple times, so there is no honest reason to keep making this mistake.
This omits the critical detail of what does the parent suggest we do about it, and how does that approach track with what their own family’s outcome? which is the core of this debate. This is a detail that you consistently want to skip.
If you can quote one instance of Boebert (not miscellaneous Republicans) shaming teens for having sex and getting pregnant, then I agree there is justification for pointing and laughing at her for being a grandmother at 36.
But if her schtick isn’t that, then you’re just coming across as pearl clutchy as the Republicans you’re whining about. At the same time, you’re stepping right into the culture war trap that the GOP wants the Dems step in. You don’t think they relish in calling Dems hypocrites too?
“Look at them trying to take this young grandmother down a notch. Aren’t they supposed to be against Puritanism and slut-shaming? What a laugh.”
At any rate, I’m tired of sticking up for conservatives, so I’m done with this conversation.
Who pointed and laughed? Can you quote just one instance of a poster doing so?
No, not really. If you’d paid attention, it is the fact that she has the power and the will to force others to raise their children as she sees fit.
They do all the time without any justification. Just as any calling Democrats hypocrites in this situation would be completely without justification.
Who did that? Can you quote one poster that is slut shaming? If not, then you are just coming across as being wrong on the basis and foundation of everything that you have said here.
I mean, you came into this conversation with the express purposes of sticking up for conservatives, and did so by making unsupported assertions and fallacious conclusions. That was by your own choice. And honestly, you did a pretty spectacularly bad job at it.
Unless, of course, we’re hypothesizing along with chela that Boebert’s family is one of those considering it “acceptable” to treat unmarried teen parenthood as “just the next phase of a relationship”, while at the same time she considers herself a “Christian values” authority on how to prevent teen pregnancies in other families. (Summary: Lecture the kids about abstinence and God a lot and don’t explain anything about how sex and pregnancy actually work.)
Why do you think that the many, many documented instances of Boebert explicitly endorsing and echoing the messages of right-wing “Christian values” organizations don’t count in this category?
She is a high-profile spokesperson for exactly the kind of Christian-nationalist radical reactionary movement that is hugely invested in shaming teens for having sex, along with a lot of other regressive social attitudes. She uses their rhetoric, she speaks at their conferences, she promotes their agenda legislatively.
Why do you insist on maintaining that she can’t be called out on her hypocrisy of being (apparently) fine with unwed teen pregnancy in her own family, but at the same time perfectly willing to persecute it in other families via this Christian-right ideology?
If she got her way, then having children out of wedlock would be illegal.
Then again, she has a criminal past herself, so maybe there is no real contradiction. It doesn’t matter what laws she advocates for, she doesn’t feel that she needs to obey them.
I haven’t read every post in this thread, but whether the pregnancy was intentional, or even if the sex was mututally consensual, is a family issue, and it’s something that could happen in any family.
It’s just that it’s the BOEBERTS that it’s getting the reaction that it is. People said a lot of the same things about the Palin family during the 2008 presidential campaign, and I also felt that pregnancy was off-limits to the press, beyond anything the family wished to share. (And I have always had doubts that Sarah and Todd are actually the biological parents of Trig, their “youngest child” who has Down syndrome; I have long believed that he’s most likely the offspring of their oldest son, who was in his early 20s at the time, and an unidentified girlfriend, and they adopted him and have raised him as their own.)