Monday, September 1, 2008

Bristol's Got A Bun (Updated)


The Palin camp announced this morning that Gov. Palin's eldest daughter, 17 year old Bristol, is pregnant.

From Hot Air, this is the statement released by Gov. Palin and her husband:

“We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

Does this hurt Gov. Palin? Perhaps with some - though indeed, it may endear here to others who have had to deal with a similar problem. For my part, and I suspect for most, this just adds a bit of human drama to a story already full of it. This is the type of problem many a parent in this country has had to deal with - and the Palin's are dealing with it appropriately. All kids make mistakes - and what parent does not go through the teen years of their children without their fingers crossed hoping that the mistakes they make will be without long term consequence.

Although I do not think this raises a colorable issue, the left will be well within their rights to ask Gov. Palin how this reflects on her calls for abstinence only sex education. I understand that has been her position at least. But this is one the left go easily overboard with, either by making too much of an issue of it, denigrating Bristol as a whore or trying to paint this as a moral failing of Gov. Palin herself. They do so at very much at their peril.

Updated: Stop the ACLU has responses from both Barack Obama and Dobson. My hats off to both for class responses. And as to Dobson's response, that is what I expected from the evangelical camp:

. . . ”Being a Christian does not mean you’re perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord. I’ve been the beneficiary of that forgiveness and restoration in my own life countless times, as I’m sure the Palins have.

“The media are already trying to spin this as evidence Gov. Palin is a ‘hypocrite,’ but all it really means is that she and her family are human. They are in my prayers and those of millions of Americans.”


5 comments:

suek said...

"...the left will be well within their rights to ask Gov. Palin how this reflects on her calls for abstinence only sex education."

50 years ago (well, maybe 60) there was no sex education at all. Abstinence was expected.... The percentage of illegitimate babies was....? (I found one table that said it was about 14%. Someone claimed that that was a fake figure - everybody lied) 50 (or 60) years later, after explicit sex education for the last 20 (30?) years, the percentage of illegitimate babies is ....? (that same table said it was about 44%)

Doesn't seem to me that sex education has done much other than to teach youngsters at the peak of their sexual urges how to indulge those urges, and remove their inhibitions.

GW said...

You may well be right Suek. I do not pretend to know the answer to this one, which is one of the reasons I think it worthy of intellectually honest debate. To the extent that sex education is limited to nothing more than an explanation of biology, I think that does no harm and is morally neutral. In that sense, it does not detract from an abstinence message. But again, I just don't know on this one. I am quite willing to hear debate from people who have studied the social and moral implications.

suek said...

>>I am quite willing to hear debate from people who have studied the social and moral implications.>>

Well, that _is_ the issue, isn't it!

Palin's position, if I understand it correctly, is that she objects to "explicit" sexual education. I don't pretend to know exactly what the sex education in Alaska is, but I suspect that the program is rife with "how to" information more than just an explanation of biology. As if teenagers need more of the "how to" with the explicit nature of films and tv shows available today.

As I see it, no contraceptives are 100% effective. If sexual intercourse occurs, at some point there _will_ be a pregnancy. The left is adamant in their position that all sex is normal, and repressing it by limiting it to marriage is abnormal. The left doesn't seem to admit to this inevitibility, except that they say "oh well...in that case, get an abortion".

Religion, on the other hand, says that yes, the urge is normal, but you can control that urge, and limit it to marriage. In effect, you are _not_ just an animal - you are above the animals and can control your passions. The primary purpose of sex is procreation, and humans take nearly 20 years to reach maturity - marriage is the social condition that best serves that end.

What are the social implications of unlimited sex? I think we have a pretty good idea. We've seen the results over the last 30 years or so. Do you like what you see? How does it compare to the US culture of ...say 50 years ago? better or worse? Who's better off? the children of irresponsible parents?
Look at Great Britain. How are they faring with minimal religious influence?

You know....I believe there is a God. I also believe that if there is not a God, that man would need to invent one. We are an amazingly powerful animal...our intelligence makes us so. Without limitations, we can do terrible things. The only effective limitation upon us is a Being which is immutable and incorruptible, and can hold us to infallible justice in an afterlife, so that we place limitations upon ourselves. And those limitations we call religion.

Sex isn't bad. Sex isn't evil. But sex makes babies. Unless you're ok with abortions, the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies is abstinence.

And homosexuality.

Another issue for another day.

Joanne said...

Good post suek!

"...the left will be well within their rights to ask Gov. Palin how this reflects on her calls for abstinence only sex education."

How so? I would think more than ever she would be within her rights to promote abstinence sex education. As a mother, Sarah Palin, is living with the result of a daughter not abstaining from sex. I'm just thankful abortion is not an option for this unborn child. Two wrongs do not make a right, and a wonderful baby can only bring joy, hard work, and a change in plans, but then what in life is predictable anyhow. Palin's daughter will never regret her decision to keep her child.

suek said...

>>Palin's daughter will never regret her decision to keep her child.>>

Well...maybe in about 18 years she may have a question or two about _what_ she was thinking!!!