# The Palin Baby Rumor - Proven False? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766 "2008-09-02T23:40:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/21 "2008-09-03T06:09:15Z")
The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the previously mentioned Rovian tactics. Since when is the correct response to a question like this to push your teenage daughter’s pregnancy into the limelight, rather than release your own medical records like the other candidates? It shows that Palin places cynical political manipulations above her own family, and certainly above the welfare of the country. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/22 "2008-09-03T06:46:37Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Buried in the now deleted threads, but findable if you insist, is links to contemporary reports in which she says that contractions (paraphrasing but pretty close) “different than the ‘false labor’ she’d been having” began at about 4am. Statistically the time course from those early contractions to delivery is 10 - 20 hours for first timers and generally (although not always) faster with additional pregnancies. PROM (premature rupture of the membranes) further speeds it up and is a major infection risk to the child. So it is interesting that she is quoted as saying different things at different times. In one report she was quoted saying that she had her doctors permission but her doctor denies having said it was okay to do it - although she also claims that she doesn’t think doing it was doing anything wrong - which is something that I can tell you no OB would agree with. I think that anyone who knows that are statistically likely to deliver in the next several hours would be insane to place themselves out of reach of expert care. A home birth involves a trained midwife and generally follows strict guidelines about having hospital back up available for potential complications. To compare that birthing circumstance with being in airplane en route to Alaska with just you, Dad, and flight attendants present to handle whatever situation might occur is absurd. > > **John** , I maintain my proposition: the circumstances as described by her are bizarre and if true evince a reckless person; a person who is in line to possibly take over the Presidency must have any bizarre bits that we know about explored. I do not know what the actual facts are. Again, I am open to the explanation that she really is just that stupid and reckless but I am also open to other explanations. Should bizarre bits of the past in individuals going up for this sort of job be ignored in your opinion? Well, Palin has raised all of these issues, so it is fair for us to discuss them. And I personally think that her use of lies, red-herrings and dares to prove her wrong (as well as the willingness to through her teen aged daughter under the bus to protect herself) show that that this woman is a true Karl Rovian successor to Cheney. The fact that Republicans are swallowing this hook, line and sinker and the blogosphere lefties are tearing their remaining hair out seals it: this woman can baffle a whole nation with her bullshit and is the next W. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/23 "2008-09-03T06:54:54Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the previously mentioned Rovian tactics. > > Since when is the correct response to a question like this to push your teenage daughter’s pregnancy into the limelight, rather than release your own medical records like the other candidates? > > It shows that Palin places cynical political manipulations above her own family, and certainly above the welfare of the country. It doesn’t prove anything. You might like to see the picture in a way that no matter what, Sarah Palin is evil, but you don’t know all of the circumstances that went into making the decision to reveal her daughter’s pregnancy. Personally, I think that getting it out in the open now might damage her family less than having a daughter with a huge swollen belly two weeks before election day, when there would have been even more media scrutiny. Even if you don’t agree with her, you can’t claim to know her motivations. The idea that Sarah’s daughter is not actually pregnant, or is not as far along as she claims, is pretty intriguing though. Like most people here, I think something smells fishy. This strange situation doesn’t all add up, but I’m not going to pretend to know what the missing pieces are. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/24 "2008-09-03T07:15:51Z")
**Mosier** that of course is part of the point: when exactly were they going to mention that Bristol was currently pregnant if questioning of these bizarre bits had not started up and needed squashing? Were they going to try to keep her belly hidden behind Trig and a large blanket for the rest of the election? If Palin was a serious consideration all along wouldn’t this be something to immunize against by getting it out there before her being chosen was announced? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/25 "2008-09-03T07:29:24Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Mosier** that of course is part of the point: when exactly were they going to mention that Bristol was currently pregnant if questioning of these bizarre bits had not started up and needed squashing? Were they going to try to keep her belly hidden behind Trig and a large blanket for the rest of the election? If Palin was a serious consideration all along wouldn’t this be something to immunize against by getting it out there before her being chosen was announced? My best guess is that McCain’s campaign didn’t know about the pregnancy, and Sarah Palin intended to hide it from the public, underestimating just how much scrutiny her family would be under. Now that she has already been chosen, the Repubs are just trying to do damage control. Overall, her benefits outweigh her downsides. She is the only woman on either ticket, in a lot of ways she’s the only candidate that middle class average Americans feel like they can relate to (I’m not intending to expand the scope of the debate with this statement, just stating my opinion), and she’s at least getting people TALKING about the Republicans. Before her it was all Obama, all the time. How many chin-ups can Obama do? When do Obama’s daughters get to have a puppy? What does Obama’s brother think about all of this? The McCain campaign needed a good old fashioned public interest boost. Nobody cares what breed of dog Obama’s going to get anymore. Everyone wants to know whether Sarah Palin is a good mother, and what in the world was she THINKING on that airplane, and just who is she anyway? People are finally talking about the Republican ticket, and at the end of the day I think the Repubs are smart enough to avoid a disastrous public-opinion-killing scandal from it. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/26 "2008-09-03T07:32:50Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > It doesn’t prove anything. You might like to see the picture in a way that no matter what, Sarah Palin is evil, but you don’t know all of the circumstances that went into making the decision to reveal her daughter’s pregnancy. > > Personally, I think that getting it out in the open now might damage her family less than having a daughter with a huge swollen belly two weeks before election day, when there would have been even more media scrutiny. Even if you don’t agree with her, you can’t claim to know her motivations. > > The idea that Sarah’s daughter is not actually pregnant, or is not as far along as she claims, is pretty intriguing though. Like most people here, I think something smells fishy. This strange situation doesn’t all add up, but I’m not going to pretend to know what the missing pieces are. > [@Mosier](#): > > It doesn’t prove anything. You might like to see the picture in a way that no matter what, Sarah Palin is evil, but you don’t know all of the circumstances that went into making the decision to reveal her daughter’s pregnancy. > > Personally, I think that getting it out in the open now might damage her family less than having a daughter with a huge swollen belly two weeks before election day, when there would have been even more media scrutiny. Even if you don’t agree with her, you can’t claim to know her motivations. > > The idea that Sarah’s daughter is not actually pregnant, or is not as far along as she claims, is pretty intriguing though. Like most people here, I think something smells fishy. This strange situation doesn’t all add up, but I’m not going to pretend to know what the missing pieces are. You are missing my point. I never said Palin should not have revealed her daughter’s pregnancy. The problem is that she revealed the pregnancy _instead_ of simply releasing her own medical records like the other candidates. She is making her teenage daughter a pawn in a cynical Rovian political ploy. After the last 8 years, we need a little transparency more than ever, but Palin is immediately proving she is more of the same. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/27 "2008-09-03T09:07:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Menocchio** yeah I certainly do. I also know that given a child with Down’s syndrome the odds are more likely that the parent is under 30 than over 30. This is not the relevant statistic. As **Sam Stone** already explained in one of the Lost threads, the relevant question is this: Given two women, a 16-year-old and a 44-year-old, one of whom is the mother of an infant with DS, which woman is more likely to be that mother? The answer is that the 44-year-old is overwhelmingly more likely to be the mother. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/28 "2008-09-03T09:52:55Z")
> [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > This is not the relevant statistic. As **Sam Stone** already explained in one of the Lost threads, the relevant question is this: > > Given two women, a 16-year-old and a 44-year-old, one of whom is the mother of an infant with DS, which woman is more likely to be that mother? > > The answer is that the 44-year-old is overwhelmingly more likely to be the mother. True. The problem in the lost threads was that the question was stated badly up front. When we’re talking about one _particular_ Down’s baby, with two prospective mothers, then, _all other things being equal,_ the older woman is much more likely to be the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/29 "2008-09-03T10:04:48Z")
> [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > This is not the relevant statistic. As **Sam Stone** already explained in one of the Lost threads, the relevant question is this: > > Given two women, a 16-year-old and a 44-year-old, one of whom is the mother of an infant with DS, which woman is more likely to be that mother? > > The answer is that the 44-year-old is overwhelmingly more likely to be the mother. Without giving any foolish speculation on the rumor, I will point out that you are mathematically incorrect. You seem to be assuming that both women were equally likely to give birth to an infant in the first place. The relevant question is this: given two women, a 16-year-old and a 44-year-old, which is more likely to first become pregnant, then to give birth, then finally to have an infant with DS. For example, suppose that the live birth rate for 44-year-olds is 1 birth per 1000 women in a year. Suppose that the live birth rate for 16-year-olds is 30 births per 1000 women in a year. Now, say the incidence of DS is 1/41 for a 44-year-old and 1/1200 for a 16-year-old. A 16-year-old is 30 times more likely to have a live birth, but a 44-year-old is 29 times more likely to give birth to an infant with DS given that they do give birth at all. As a result, if you don’t know from the beginning that the 44-year-old was pregnant, mathematically the 16-year-old is very slightly more likely to be the mother. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/30 "2008-09-03T10:16:14Z")
Here’s one (bolded): > [@lavenderviolet](#): > > The truth is that **her doctor evidently gave her the okay** to do what she did Here’s another (ditto): > [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](#): > > I know y’all’s original conspiracy theory was shot down by Bristol being **five months preggers** , but not to worry… Having clarified that, on to another point: **JCoM** , the essence of your ‘conspiracy theory’ was common practice when I was young: a mother pretending that her daughter’s child was her own, and raising her grandchild as her own, in order to protect her daughter from the ‘shame’ of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The main difference between forty years ago and now is that few hospitals would actively help a family maintain that artifice, beyond observing the usual confidentiality of patient records. Hence the choice of a remote hospital. I suppose you can call that a conspiracy theory, but it’s a pretty piddling one, and not particularly complicated. A mother would have to be of a certain mindset to _bother_ with such a coverup attempt in this day and age, but that’s the most far-fetched aspect of it, AFAIAC. I’m not saying it happened or it didn’t, but those of us who are old enough to remember when such ‘conspiracies’ were routine (aren’t you, or do I misremember?) aren’t exactly impressed by such a characterization. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/31 "2008-09-03T10:23:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Two separate issues: > > The questions I raised about the difference between water breaking and fluid leaking were genuine questions based on conflicting reports on Saturday that I have not repeated since I got an independent opinion of the issue. I have not "poo-poo"ed anything. > > That issue was not raised in the OP and I did not see anything to debate in the OP. (I’d have shipped it to GQ except that there are so many hostile political voices on the SDMB at the moment that it would have simply come flying back here.) > > Why should I “defend” a position I have not taken? The OP did not raise that issue. Without that issue, there was no debate. If you now wish to debate it in this thread, go ahead.\* However, it is this overwhelming need on the part of the extreme partisans of both camps to pick fights that I find tiresome. There are a dozen or so of you that look for fights (or demand that positions not taken be defended) where they are unnecessary. > > - I would ask that you actually wait until someone takes an oppositional stand before we fill up one more thread with one-sided rants against the perfidy of one’s political opponents. I’m not looking to pick a fight. I’m not looking for a one-sided rant. I’m looking for answers. Not all debates are simply for argument’s sake. Can we find out who gave birth on that day? Yes? No? Why not? There’s obviously a debate regarding the risk she put her child in. There’s obviously a question regarding why she couldn’t just _say_ she wanted to have her own doctor attend the birth rather than that silly response her husband gave to the question. Do you really NOT see the questions and debate surrounding it? Was she unaware she’d be under public scrutiny once she accepted McCain’s job offer? This is all standard shit for a national candidate. When Obama’s religion and Other Nefarious Ways were all over the internet, he addressed them directly. Why doesn’t Sarah address this? Why doesn’t she put it to rest by releasing documentation? Making a public statement? SOMETHING? Was there a statement I missed that put this all to rest? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/32 "2008-09-03T10:55:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Here’s one (bolded): > > Here’s another (ditto): > Having clarified that, on to another point: > > **JCoM** , the essence of your ‘conspiracy theory’ was common practice when I was young: a mother pretending that her daughter’s child was her own, and raising her grandchild as her own, in order to protect her daughter from the ‘shame’ of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The main difference between forty years ago and now is that few hospitals would actively help a family maintain that artifice, beyond observing the usual confidentiality of patient records. Hence the choice of a remote hospital. > > I suppose you can call that a conspiracy theory, but it’s a pretty piddling one, and not particularly complicated. A mother would have to be of a certain mindset to _bother_ with such a coverup attempt in this day and age, but that’s the most far-fetched aspect of it, AFAIAC. > > I’m not saying it happened or it didn’t, but those of us who are old enough to remember when such ‘conspiracies’ were routine (aren’t you, or do I misremember?) aren’t exactly impressed by such a characterization. I agree that people don’t give a shit anymore. My husband’s sister bore a child that was raised as her brother by her parents. My sister-in-law, as well as my neighbor, who was knocked up by my other neighbor, were sent away to homes for unwed mothers. But given the fact that Palin didn’t look even a little bit pregnant, I have to question the situation. I was 19 and pregnant, and very petite. I lost my waistline, even if I didn’t look full-blown pregnant. I was showing at 6 months. My son only weighed 5.5 lbs and I looked VERY pregnant for the last three months. The photographs I’ve seen show her looking decidedly \*not \* pregnant. Would it be the first time someone didn’t show? Hardly. But it’s far more rare to not show after four previous births. Since all Palin’s photos were pulled from the internet, we don’t know what she looked like at 8 months, but why would they do that? It is also curious that she didn’t tell anyone about the pregnancy. It’s also curious that the daughter was pulled out of school for so long. Is there any documentation on that? Anyone else in Palin’s position would provide the documentation, photos, etc., to put it to rest and get on with the business of getting elected. Why are we still asking questions and not receiving answers? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/33 "2008-09-03T11:52:42Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I haven’t heard a peep about the Mother/Grandmother rumor since the daughter’s pregnancy became public knowledge. So…did the leaky flight from Texas to Alaska never happen? Did she really have a baby or did she rush back to Moose Snout to be by her daughter’s side? Is there any way to find out? Can we assume that people with better investigative skills are getting the answers via Formal Documentation? > > I won’t be voting for the Republicans regardless of the outcome of this story, but I’d certainly like to know if the possible VP of our country scammed the nation in order to save face. I don’t know what to think. Is she a reckless head case or is she just a quirky little gun-totin’ governor who doesn’t show when she’s pregnant? First, I thought her daughter was now five months pregnant, and the kid is four months old. If that is true, then that settles it. Also, since it was her fifth kid, she probably had a good idea of when she was going to give birth and decided that she would rather do it close to home than thousands of miles away. But most importantly, how many people would have had to been in on this “conspiracy” for it to have worked? Her whole family, everyone at school, the doctors, the pilots, her advisors; and for what purpose? She is admitting that her daughter is currently pregnant and everyone understands it as a private family matter. What could she gain by going through an elaborate cover-up to pretend that her granddaughter is really her daughter? And you would vote GOP anyways even if you do find out that she is a “reckless head case” ? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/34 "2008-09-03T12:04:05Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Anyone else in Palin’s position would provide the documentation, photos, etc., to put it to rest and get on with the business of getting elected. Why are we still asking questions and not receiving answers? Because it is not a matter af asking questions - it is making an endless series of increasingly bizarre accusations. Obama gets to deliver some drivel about how this is purely a family matter, knowing that his lackeys, lickspittles and liars will continue on the attack with or without his statement. It doesn’t matter that these scurrilous rumors are false - everyone with room-temperature IQ or above knows they are false. What matters is to try to get the candidate to address them, and get them in the news. If Palin produces incontrovertible evidence that the latest attack is false, the left-wing slime merchants will drop it without an apology and make up something else. > [@Kalhoun](#): > > I’m not looking to pick a fight. I’m not looking for a one-sided rant. I’m looking for answers. No, you’re not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/35 "2008-09-03T12:07:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > First, I thought her daughter was now five months pregnant, and the kid is four months old. If that is true, then that settles it. > > Also, since it was her fifth kid, she probably had a good idea of when she was going to give birth and decided that she would rather do it close to home than thousands of miles away. > > But most importantly, how many people would have had to been in on this “conspiracy” for it to have worked? Her whole family, everyone at school, the doctors, the pilots, her advisors; and for what purpose? > > She is admitting that her daughter is currently pregnant and everyone understands it as a private family matter. What could she gain by going through an elaborate cover-up to pretend that her granddaughter is really her daughter? > > What if the daughter isn’t 5 months along? > > And you would vote GOP anyways even if you do find out that she is a “reckless head case” ? She had no idea when she was going to deliver, due to the fact that she was in another state, was “premature” (if she was pregnant at all) and is considered “high risk” by all normal OB/GYN standards. Just being over 40 automatically puts you in a riskier category. Who can say anything? At this point, it is private information. The doctors cannot legally comment on any of it. All she needs to do is release the medical documents and there’ll be no question. The daughter was pulled out of school, making it easier to cover up. The pilots would not have to be part of the conspiracy. Her advisors were deliberately left in the dark until she was six months along. The purpose is because her daughter’s ideas are so far removed from what Palin and the Republican party believe. It makes her look ineffective. The baby is a boy. I would never vote GOP as the party has represented itself during my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/36 "2008-09-03T12:20:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If Palin produces incontrovertible evidence that the latest attack is false, the left-wing slime merchants will drop it without an apology and make up something else. At least that much of your post is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/37 "2008-09-03T12:23:36Z")
:mad: > [@Shodan](#): > > Because it is not a matter af asking questions - it is making an endless series of increasingly bizarre accusations. What’s bizarre is the parts of the story that we know to be fact. > [@](#): > > Obama gets to deliver some drivel about how this is purely a family matter, knowing that his lackeys, lickspittles and liars will continue on the attack with or without his statement. It doesn’t matter that these scurrilous rumors are false - everyone with room-temperature IQ or above knows they are false. What matters is to try to get the candidate to address them, and get them in the news. If Palin produces incontrovertible evidence that the latest attack is false, the left-wing slime merchants will drop it without an apology and make up something else. The point of my OP was that no one has been pursuing it, even though the whole thing stinks. I haven’t heard anyone explain any of it away, officially or otherwise. Can you? > [@](#): > > No, you’re not. I don’t see you contributing anything of substance to the thread. Can you defend any of Palin’s bizarre behavior with facts? If not, your opinion is pretty fucking irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/38 "2008-09-03T13:04:12Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > Without giving any foolish speculation on the rumor, I will point out that you are mathematically incorrect. You’re right. :smack: > [@](#): > > You seem to be assuming that both women were equally likely to give birth to an infant in the first place. My mistake wasn’t quite that bad, but when I guestimated the relevant pregnancy rates, I was off by an order of magnitude. I was using the right equations but with the wrong numbers. Using your numbers, given a 16-year-old and a 44-year-old, one of whom is the mother of an infant with DS, the odds that the 16-year-old is the mother is 50.6%, or just slightly more than a half, as you say. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/39 "2008-09-03T13:08:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Obama gets to deliver some drivel about how this is purely a family matter, knowing that his lackeys, lickspittles and liars will continue on the attack with or without his statement. Yeah, we’re all taking orders from Obama HQ. :rolleyes: This isn’t something that’s being pushed by any Dem pols that I know of, and it isn’t even being pushed by any bloggers that are particularly well-known. And there’s no slimy ads, no robocalls, nothing pushing this that requires money. This story spread only because it made sense to people - just ordinary people - and they bought into it. It’s the marketplace of ideas, in its most pure form. If you don’t like it, I hear Russia and China are nice at this time of year. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter that these scurrilous rumors are false - everyone with room-temperature IQ or above knows they are false. What’s “scurrilous” about them? As I’ve pointed out repeatedly (including earlier in this thread), they put Sarah Palin in a much better light than her _own_ story does. At any rate, it’s only your opinion that the ‘babygate’ story is false. I’d agree that the preponderance of the evidence is on your side, but I don’t think the door’s exactly been slammed shut on the possibility that it’s true. (Which is why there’s a debate, **tom**. See the thread title.) > [@](#): > > If Palin produces incontrovertible evidence that the latest attack is false, the left-wing slime merchants will drop it without an apology and make up something else. Well, I’ll help you hold them accountable. Give me a list of up to 10 of the most prominent “left-wing slime merchants” who have been pushing this story, and we’ll see what they say afterwards. 1. If nobody’s ever heard of them in the first place, then we toss them out of sample. No harm, no foul. 2. If they’re bloggers that I or others here have at least heard of, prior to this story, then we’ll see what they say, and keep score of whether they apologize or not. 3. The ones that don’t apologize will hear from me about that. And from you, if you choose. How’s that sound? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/40 "2008-09-03T13:24:35Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > First, I thought her daughter was now five months pregnant, and the kid is four months old. If that is true, then that settles it. It would. But as I pointed out earlier, that’s one of the things we’re taking Palin’s word on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766.md?page=3)