Republicans: do as I say, not as I do

The reason why I think it matters is that she is trying to ram her religious right, absintence ownly, no sex ed in schools preference into everyones face(do some reading).. and it worked great for her own.

She's obviously a great decisions maker.

The girl is marrying the father of said unborn child.

Dan

I would tap any of the palin girls above 16... I'm just sayin' ;)

I think it is a non issue, personally.

I really believe it spells hypocrite.

but here's a better do as I say not as I do...

Say that you are sending the money from the bridge to nowhere back to washington.

In reality..

use the money for ketchicakans airport and not save the taxpayers any money..

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx

loser!

ignorant wrote: I really believe it spells hypocrite.

Everything and anything that has the evil R-word attached to it is going to spell hypocrite to you, regardless of reality.

ignorant wrote: The reason why I think it matters is that she is trying to ram her religious right, absintence ownly, no sex ed in schools preference into everyones face(do some reading).. and it worked great for her own. She's obviously a great decisions maker.

You mean, a decision maker a lot like Edwards' wholesome family stiff upper lip in the face of wife's cancer stance while he was schtupping the moviemaker? And the payola, moving expenses and refusal to take a paternity test thing?

Or Obama letting a convicted felon handle his home purchase?

I'm just askin', is all.

I never said there was anything wrong with sex (had a very serious relationship for the past 2 years, I would consider myself mature for my age, blah blah blah). Don't get the issues mixed up. I said there is a problem with someone saying a 17 y.o should not have to act responsibly for themselves and practice safe sex. I'm pretttty sure there is a cornerstore in her town that her boyfriend could get condoms from. Also pretty sure they could figure out how to use them. 17 y.o's are not stupid and can think for themselves (no matter what their parents have indoctrinated them with if that is EVEN the case). Hell, 15 y.o's are not stupid. If you think otherwise then I don't really know what to say. I approach this whole thing from the standpoint hoping she DID use some sort of contraceptive and it was an unfortunate accident. Which in this case, abstinence would have been the best choice. I do not agree with abstinence however because of exactly what you say (people like to screw)! But I believe in personal responsibility. And there are only two people to blame in this and that is the girl and her boyfriend.

Alot of assumptions made that don't necessarily jive with what one with a very religious parent might do. Some states (don't know if Alaska is one) won't allow those under the age of 18 to buy condoms or the pill without parents consent. That's a barrier caused by the "abstinence only" movement. Also, fear of getting caught with such a contraceptive by a parent might be a high deterrant to purchasing them, especially in a small town where everyone knows everyone elses business. I'm not saying she had no choice, but in these situations, many teens make the wrong choice. I'm arguing the utility of promoting contraception is greater than the utility of promoting abstinence only. I don't think we disagree, but we're working from a different set of assumptions.

You want proof? Well, I could divulge my whole sex-life on GRM but I don't really believe that it would be appropriate. The proof that I have are couples who did ABSTAIN from sex until they were actually ready and seriously thought about it (not even until marriage, now that truly takes some commitment). These couples also tended to have more stable/mature relationships (edit-which I find to be the case in relationships were abstinence is practiced because the relationship is more about the people rather than the sex). And yes this was back when I was 18/19. So I will argue choice. She had a choice and she made the wrong one knowing full well the consequences. So she's gotta deal.

This isn't about relationships. I agree that this probably wasn't the wisest decision and she'll have to live with it. I'm arguing that her mother promotes a stance that would remove the idea of mitigation from society, saying in public (from what little I've heard) that we shouldn't be educating children on contraception. It doesn't matter what the girl did, it matters what Mrs. Palin is saying.

And after this long-winded soapbox rant, I am not refering to abstinence in the sense of "until marriage". As some have said, the more left people would like everyone to believe it is a religious issue. I would wager that alot of people would agree on abstaining for a while rather then just jumping in, which unfortunatley most young adults tend to do. I doubt I have moved your stance, but at least you now may understand mine!

I understand yours. I hope you understand mine.

Integraguy,

I don’t see an indication of hypocrisy here nor do I see an opportunity where a reasonable person possibly could.

As a result, I suspect your prospective is compromised by an overwhelming desire to find fault with conservatives.

Oh, & by the way, once you get pregnant, you will have a baby...the only “choice” in the matter is if you’ll have a living baby or a dead baby.

So, lefties, would you think more of the future V.P. of the U.S.A. if she had instead forced her 17 year old daughter to murder her grandchild instead of "messing up her life"? Just wondering.

Dr. Hess wrote: So, lefties, would you think more of the future V.P. of the U.S.A. if she had instead forced her 17 year old daughter to murder her grandchild instead of "messing up her life"? Just wondering.

Wow nice wording. Just keep the safety on that question and keep it pointed at the ground at all times, OK?

I actually think she did the right thing - if she wants to have a kid and start a family, good for her.

Forcing children on people who don't want and can't/won't care for them is what I have a problem with, it will only result in misery for everyone involved.

HiTempguy wrote: ...The proof that I have are couples who did ABSTAIN from sex until they were actually ready and seriously thought about it (not even until marriage, now that truly takes some commitment). These couples also tended to have more stable/mature relationships (edit-which I find to be the case in relationships were abstinence is practiced because the relationship is more about the people rather than the sex)...

A very interesting observation. Although I think you would find it difficult to prove that abstinence promoted stable/mature relationships rather than people who were prone to (or in) stable/mature relationships could maintain abstinence. I highly suspect the reality is the latter.

GameboyRMH wrote: ...Forcing children on people who don't want and can't/won't care for them is what I have a problem with, it will only result in misery for everyone involved....

Well, according to the "fathers" MySpace page, he does NOT want children... ...yet another reason NEVER to put information on any of those MyFaceButt pages...

It can be argued that her stance on these issues does not address all of the pressures facing our youth today, without dragging the kid through the media at this delicate time of her life. Unplanned pregnancy can be struggle enough without the unwanted judgement and criticism of the entire nation.

Dr. Hess wrote: So, lefties, would you think more of the future V.P. of the U.S.A. if she had instead forced her 17 year old daughter to murder her grandchild instead of "messing up her life"? Just wondering.

Or.. if a few years back, a father in Kansas had insisted their white daughter abort the black bast$%d she was carrying?

No Ossama - bamma!

We would have missed all those great speaches. Second only to Adolph Hitler!

That made me giggle

$0.02:

Palin is a BIG proponent of abstinence-only sexual education (which doesn't actually educate children about sex, and has been proven to be counterproductive at preventing teen pregnancy and STIs). She is also very pro-life/anti-abortion. Presumably she taught these same values to her children.

I see the choice of Palin for a VP as being tactical for a lot of reasons. One of the big ones is because she's a social conservative who espouses "traditional" values (gays bad, abstinence, no abortion). I see her as being picked to stand as a living example of someone who is firmly behind the social conservative movement. She has a son getting shipped off to Iraq. She has a 17 y/o daughter who is pregnant and keeping the child. These were both known before she was chosen as a VP.

I have a problem that the Reps are apparently using Palin's children as political fodder. As I understand, it was the Reps who launched the news about the daughter being pregnant (since it wasn't widely known outside of the Palins' circle). I think it is inconsiderate to use a pregnant young lady, going through something difficult, to advance a political agenda.

I do have a problem with Abstinence-Only sex-ed. It doesn't work. People still have sex, but they're taught that it's bad and they need to hide it. When you raise your kids like that, you end up with 17 y/o daughters who get pregnant and undercut many of their opportunities for the future. She's also getting pushed into a marriage that I predict is off to a bad start. They're not getting married because they want to commit to each other. They're getting married because they're supposed to commit to raising a kid.

If you actually want to cut down on the numbers of abortions, teach kids about their contraceptive options, make it clear how to take advantage of those options, and teach them to not be embarrassed for doing so.

I think it's a safe bet that her sexually active daughter was not on the pill. I think it's a safe bet that she wouldn't have let her daughter be.

It's not hypocritical, but it does illustrate a failed policy.

Or.. make abortion, retroactive

Write in Ron Paul

I've been getting a form of abstinence education my whole life; In our state it's called STOP class. I've been four times now. For some reason I keep speeding. Maybe the state needs to be educating and equipping me to drive better. Like a new M3 and a few weekends of driving school.

Well, the government isn't making them off limits to you at least.

Just a wild thought here, why not let the PARENTS teach their children about sex? Why is it the GOVERNMENT's job to teach the children about sex? What's next? Is the government supposed to teach the children right from wrong? Religion? Feed them? What exactly are the parents' responsibility here? Just push them out and walk away?

Dr. Hess is right, now more government in schools

Dr. Hess wrote: Just a wild thought here, why not let the PARENTS teach their children about sex? Why is it the GOVERNMENT's job to teach the children about sex? What's next? Is the government supposed to teach the children right from wrong? Religion? Feed them? What exactly are the parents' responsibility here? Just push them out and walk away?

1: Because parents apparently don't.

2: Because someone has to. That job has been pushed onto the schools, which is a pretty efficient place to reach almost every child. Generally parents have the option to opt their child out of sex-ed if they are opposed to the curriculum.

2a: Education in schools is much cheaper than the societal costs it preempts. Particularly since sex-ed isn't just about how to avoid having babies, but about how to minimize the spread of STI's.

3: Dunno. Stuff. But that was a rhetorical question.

4: One of the primary goals of an educational system is to acculturate the next generation. instilling the common morality of a society is integral to acculturation.

5: The First Amendment prevents that. Although many religious folks think we should teach "intelligent design" in biology classes, despite the fact that it's a religious, and not scientific, belief.

6: Many would argue the government already does that. I think you would.

7: Apparently not much, but you should check with social services.

8: That's called adoption. I'm sure Pelosi would favor that option over abortion or teaching people to use contraceptives. (I admit, that's a low blow.)

[/smartass]

We already had the design v. the Evolution Religion discussion (now in the archives somewhere). It fell apart when the religious zealots couldn't handle the rational discussion of their totally unproven beliefs. Pointing to it in a book and having a priest tell you that's how it happened doesn't sit with the rest of us who may have actually spent a decade studying life at a micro and macro level. Especially the parts that go "we have no proof of this because of our limited knowledge, so we just must BELIEVE..." It might have been before your time, Salanis. Some searching of the archive would give you some intersting reading.

Here it is.

http://archive.grassrootsmotorsports.com/board/viewtopic.php?pid=344395

Dr. Hess wrote: Just a wild thought here, why not let the PARENTS teach their children about sex? Why is it the GOVERNMENT's job to teach the children about sex? What's next? Is the government supposed to teach the children right from wrong? Religion? Feed them? What exactly are the parents' responsibility here? Just push them out and walk away?

I agree.