That’s what’s pissing me off, too! Whiney little bitches that act like it’s 1962 and we all want Bristol to be sent off to the Home for Unwed Sluts. No one gives a fuck about Bristol. NO ONE.
No, this is one escapade that I’ve not taken any heat about. Thanks for your concern, though.
I was going to elaborate with precisely that point. You don’t want word getting back to your mom that you’re planning on having sex, or to get the Evil Eye from the Church Lady behind the counter at the pharmacy.
Hell’s bells, at SOME point SOMEBODY would’ve noticed she was pregnant! From what I hear, much of the town of Wasilla already had. And having her mom as a VP candidate, SOMEBODY would’ve let it slip, probably sometime before she gave birth.
The kid was doomed by being born into a family where mom wanted to be a celebrity. And mom has been one for ages, first locally, then statewide, and now nationally. I have felt sorry for her all along because being a celebrity unwed mom wasn’t her idea, and I believe that, as a parent who knew what would happen to her child once word of her condition came out–and it would, now or later–that Palin agreed to run was a selfish and heartless decision.
Why? Sarah Palin herself went 7 months without telling anyone. Maybe it’s a family trait.
The little bundle of joy would’ve given itself away eventually, unless it had already been given away to an adoption agency. Which might be a better fate than being raised by that rink rat, though I don’t expect him to hang around any longer than he has to. Keeping him out of trouble and in his marriage will be a new duty for the Secret Service.
(thinking about Dubya and Condi and Bill and pretty much any female)
Okay, maybe not all that new.
You forgot choice 2c: Having sex in a non-traditional method that, while at some risk from a social disease, eliminates almost all possibility of pregnancy.
(That’d be the butt, Bob.)
I was SO HAPPY when, after 30 years of that sanctimonious twat denying it happened, somebody found the clip.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic;10157216. The point is, they don’t listen.[/QUOTE]
If they “don’t listen” then why would they listen to someone telling them to wear a condom?
I mean, is it okay to tell your kid not to shoot heroin, or should you supply them with clean needles?
If I tell my kid not to shoot heroin, is it my fault if he gets HIV from an infected needle? Is it my fault if he was embarassed to go to the local clinic to get free needles because one of my friends might see him walking in or out of the place?
I know that’s not the same thing, but what can you teach a kid about sexual morality? Maybe I don’t take the fundy position. Maybe I just tell my child not to have casual sexual relations, but to only have sex with someone that they feel that they love and are in a committed relationship with? Is that too “moral” or should I tell them to fuck anyone and everything?
So, I tell them not to have casual sex, but they hook up with a good looking guy/gal and one thing leads to another. Is it still my fault because I told them not to fuck around?
Maybe they won’t. But at least you know that if they still refuse, they made their decision fully aware and educated regarding all of their options.
So, AFAICT, you are saying that yes, it is Sarah Palin’s fault that the US media went after her family, because she chose to run for VP.
So Obama is equally responsible for attacks on his wife or family - he chose to step into the limelight and run for President.
And perhaps you could explain the choice that Palin made on how public she wanted to be about the parentage of her children. You seem to be saying that there was something that she could have done to prevent left-wing blogs from spreading rumors. What would that be?
Regards,
Shodan
The press never went after Palin’s family. She’s the one who released the story that her daughter was pregnant, and the media has been very protective of her family. It’s a bogus media meme that the media is attacking Palin’s family.
The good news is that we have actual data to demonstrate which message they listen better to, and the answer is that they listen better to sex ed messages than to abstinence messages.
The fact that kids might not use the information you give them is not an excuse not to give it to them.
Again, do you really think that Bristol Palin didn’t have this information available to her? Are you seriously suggesting that she was not aware that there were such things as condoms and/or birth control pills?
Of course she knew that these things were there, and she also knew that her mother disapproved of her being sexually active at age 17. She made the personal choice to become sexually active against her mother’s wishes.
I’m not judging her for that, but to blame her mother because she didn’t use a condom, or go to the clinic to get on a birth control script is laughable. She had both of those means at her disposal and chose not to utilize them.
I’ll ask again. Is it wrong to teach any kind of sexual morality? What if you tell your daughter not to participate in a gang bang with guys lining up around the block? By you telling her that, does that put her in fear of using birth control because you would think she is gangbanging?
I don’t know. I only know that her mother wants to prevent public schools from giving out that information.
Who’s done that?
In public schools? Yes. Who decides what is sexually “moral?” What you do is give out factual information about issues relevant to health, self-protection and legality. “Morality” is not factual information. “Morality” is nothing but personal opinion.
I don’t understand this question at all. It crtainly has nothing to do with public education. My criticisms of Palin have to do with her positions on public education, not private parenting.
The LA Times says this is not so.
She sought public funds for Abstinence Only education in Alaska, so her public policy doesn’t back that up.
Actually, Newsweek now reports that she opted not to apply. This same article contains a pro-abstinence-only quote from her, and I’m sure that’s where her belief really is, but as noted above, she’s at least given lip service to the other side. I’m not sure that she has any public policy on the issue (but that may just be attributable to her only having been in office for two years)
If someone brought up issues with Obama or Biden’s family for similar reasons to the questions raised regarding Palin’s family, I wouldn’t be outraged. If Obama’s daughter was pregnant, I’d fully expect people to bring up the fact that he’s pro-choice and for sexual education, yet that didn’t seem to help his own family, for people to question if his daughter got the same kind of detailed sex education that he thinks is necessary for other people’s children. I’d wonder myself why his daughter didn’t get an abortion - was it something he suggested but his daughter wanted to keep the baby, or did he think that an abortion would not be good politically so he forbid it? If Obama was a woman and took great risks to have a high-risk baby delivered at a small clinic thousands of miles away from where his water broke, I’d have a lot of questions and it would really make me question her judgement.
I don’t think there’s a double standard here. I think the “problem” is that Biden and Obama’s family’s don’t really have anything interesting to go after. I also don’t see any attacks on McCain’s family, because there’s nothing there to attack. Palin is a special case because she does apparently have some family problems.