What Sarah Palin's Pregnant Daughter and Infant Child Have to Do With Her Run for VP

The short answer is, she won't be the one taking care of her baby. I imagine that being VP is an eighty hour a week job, with a lot of stress and travel involved. Taking care of her baby will most likely be up to her husband, her pregnant daughter, her mother, and/or some hired help.

But she's lucky because she has people to help her take care of him, or she has the money to hire someone. But she hasn't done anything to make sure other working women will be able to do the same. I would think the Christian thing would be to "do unto others", but that never seems to be the case.

Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person

But I do wonder if people would have the same criticisms of Biden if his children were in this situation. He has come away with the image of super dad for working in the senate and going home every night to his children. I don't think these criticisms of her are fair. I have a whole host of others, though...including, but not limited to, the ones cited in Esuffern's blog.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

Believe me, I too think she's got it wrong teaching her children that sex outside of marriage is wrong, because it doesn't work to prevent teens from having sex. But even if she taught her children that having safe sex is important and provided her daughter with the means to obtain birth control, she still could have gotten pregnant (it just would have been far less likely). That's my point. Parents can't control their children's decisions, try as they might, and shit happens. So even great parents can end up with pregnant daughters.

Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person

You said "Maybe if her mother were around more often she wouldn't be having unprotected sex and getting pregnant." My understanding is, and I maybe wrong, that Bristol was away at college when she got pregnant and therefore it Does not really matter if Gov. Palin was home since her daughter was not.

~T
A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~Benjamin Franklin

Thank you so much. Yeah, feel free to repost it.

Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person

Since she has become engaged to the Father, thus indicating that she may have become pregnant by choice.

That's possible. But it more likely indicates she got pregnant by accident and decided to fix the mistake by marrying the father, a time honored tradition.

There IS a double-standard in Gov. Palin's story, and it is a subject that Dr. John Corvino discussed in his column today....

There’s no inconsistency in believing both that we should teach abstinence until marriage and that we should support those children who become pregnant anyway. There’s no hypocrisy in striving for an ideal that you and your loved ones occasionally fall short of. You don’t stop endorsing speed limits just because you (or your kids) sometimes lose track of the speedometer.

The fact is, Sarah Palin’s rejection of comprehensive sex education deserves criticism on its own merits. Her family’s behavior has nothing to do with it, aside from adding anecdotes to the statistics suggesting that “abstinence only” doesn’t achieve what its proponents hope and claim.

For example, abstinence advocates are fond of citing studies by Yale’s Hannah Brückner and Columbia’s Peter Bearman, who show that adolescents who take abstinence pledges generally delay sex about eighteen months longer than those who don’t. What the advocates don’t mention is the researchers’ finding that only 12% of these adolescents keep their pledges, and that when they do have sex, they are far less likely to use protection.

In other words, the failure rate of condoms pales by comparison to the failure rate of abstinence pledges—88%, if you believe Brückner and Bearman.

But it’s not Sarah Palin’s rejection of comprehensive sex education that’s bugging me here. What’s bugging me is the right-wing reaction, which for the most part boils down to “Nobody’s perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren.”
...
For example, contrast the right-wing reaction to Palin’s grandchild with their reaction to Dick Cheney’s grandchild Samuel—son of his lesbian daughter Mary. At the time, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America announced that Mary’s pregnancy “repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation.” She was hardly alone in such denunciations.

Now here’s the same Crouse on Palin: “We are confident that she and her family will handle this unexpected situation with grace and love. We appreciate the fact that the Palins…are providing loving support to the teenager and her boyfriend.”

There are differences in the two cases to be sure. Bristol plans to marry the father, and thus will provide the baby with a “traditional” family (in one sense); Mary won’t. Bristol’s pregnancy was probably accidental, whereas Mary’s was certainly deliberate.

On the other hand, Mary’s child arrives in the home of a mature and stable couple; Bristol’s in the home of a young and hastily formed one.

But the sharpest difference in the cases is the contrast in right-wingers’ compassion. It’s the difference in empathy, a trait that’s at the core of the Golden Rule.

They tell heterosexuals: abstinence until marriage—and if you fail, we forgive you. For gays, it’s abstinence forever—and if you fail, we denounce you.

For heterosexuals, “Nobody’s perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren.”

For gays, not so much.

The simple fact is that when one sets yourself oneself up as a social conservative, and adopts positions that consider the private family lives of other citizens to be a matter of public discussion, and which include acts legislating the private family lives of other citizens in accordance with your own arbitrary moral standards, then one's OWN private family life is just as much an issue as everyone else's. Palin's hypocrisy in this case is that she doesn't like it, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

TTFN,
Blackout

-------------------------

Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.

Please use the reply link when responding to another comment. It helps keep the flow of conversation going.

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!

According to it's supporters.

Personally I would say forcing everyone to be taught either type sex ed, against some of their wills, is the more basic issue. Choice and freedom are even more basic. If Palin wants her kids taught one way, and you want another there is room to give both of you what you want.

The party that has consistently opposed school choice is the one restricting freedom.

Do you know which that is?
---
"Why push such an unpleasant and unpopular method as celibacy...?"

Are you aware that sex is as much or more emotionally important as it is physical? Would you encourage a young person to go out and have hundreds of sexual encounters with strangers? Celibacy is just the opposite extreme. Though ideologs on both sides hinder unbiased research, there is strong evidence that mating for life is less common in those with broad sexual experience. The value of having one lifetime love is the goal of those advocating abstinance. Have you considered that it may be a greater pleasure than a few, or especially many, meaningless frictions of mucus?

She vetoed the bill IN SPITE of her belief that same sex couples do not deserve equal rights. Her lawyer advised her that there could be a constitutional conflict with the bill as passed by the Republican controlled Alaska legislature, so she vetoed it, THEN she called for an advisory vote about banning same sex benefits, because if it was put to the voters, there would be less ability to challenge the decision in court as unconstitutional. The voters were not able to muster a significant enough majority to push the ban on same sex partner benefits through (a shock to Palin, who thought it was a sure thing). The vote cost 1.1 million dollars of tax payer money.

She has stated openly time and again that she is hard core anti-gay marriage and anti-gay rights.

The "radical" picture of Palin is not created by the media. It's created by her record. Any moderate, gay-compassionate gloss has been put on by the McCain campaign.

http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/8508726p-8401181c.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808290025

"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

Whether Gov. Palin's young children will be well taken care of has never been in question, and isn't the point of my post. Palin has the money and resources to make sure her young children and especially her disabled infant child will be taken care of. The point of my post is that despite her privilege, Gov. Palin has done nothing to support working mothers like herself.

As for the question of whether she will be taking care of her children? It's irrelevant, which I've already established. I don't think the question of who will be taking care of her children is sexist though, I think its realistic. Females in heterosexual parenting couples are almost always the primary caregivers. That's why we don't ask male politicians whether their children will be taken care of, because we assume that they were never taking care of them in the first place. I think its sexist to assume that she should be the primary caregiver of her children and a full time vice president. I think its sexist to assume that her husband shouldn't stay home to take care of their children.

Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person

"There is certainly a broad diversity in the numerous philosopical positions which are collectively referred to as "feminism." But in the historical context of that term as a movement--and especially as it applies to U.S. politics and the intentional appeal to Democratic women who self-identify as such that was issued by Gov. Palin--the term includes at least a few consistent points of policy, most noteably in this case a belief in biological self-determination (i.e. pro-choice on the abortion issue), which Sarah Palin opposes."

First of all we are not disagreeing on a 'movement' or even a majority of women that self identify with this label. You took issue with my opinion that a plurality (significant minority) of Hillary voters might find her appealing. On the abortion issue she consistently agrees with most women on the two most important points: She would discourage abortion and encourage adoption as the alternative, She 'would never support' any criminal penalty for women that choose to have an abortion. This is both pro choice and pro life, the only reasonable position. Illegalizing abortion is foolish, and politically impossible in 2008. Killing babies is evil.
---
"It would be a great stretch to consider Sarah Palin a member of either the second- or third-wave of feminism."

If she ends up being president perhaps 4th wave. In that event she would be a significant milestone of the Feminist movement regardless of party afiliation.
---
*rolls eyes* No one is buying it, honey...when you said you were "more organically motivated to seek the company of women throughout my life since puberty than" I was, it was plainly an anti-gay ad hominem.

Whenever you encounter any false slur against Gays on this site you have generally responded with a well formed rational rebuttal. When you are unable to rebutt a simple fact, pertinate to the discussion at hand, you start rolling your eyes, talking about humping and call me honey. See the diference?

I am sorry that you feel facts pertinate to your perspective on women is an 'attack' of any sort. I only intended to discredit your basis for opinion in this matter.
---
"I'm for freedom, equality and getting the government the heck out of people's private lives."

Amen Brother.

Have you seen either party deliver on their supposed sides of these issues? The Dems promise personal liberty, then vote for the Patriot act overwhelmingly. The Repubs are against 'Big Government' then grow it EVERY time they get the chance.

We are being lied to.
---
"I would suggest that it was the gross movement toward de-regulation..."

When the government (fannie and freddie) buys almost any morgage you(Banks and Brokers) can write then misrepresents the quality of the debt and resells it you call that deregulation?

If anyone believes she would be both VP and a full-time caregiver to her children, they're ridiculous. She would not be taking care of her children if she was VP. Her husband, her other children, and/or paid help would be doing the bulk of the caregiving. That is, if the Republicans would actually give her a real job to do. As we have seen since I originally posted this, the campaign people can't even trust her to do interviews, much less make any important decisions.

Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person