GOP sez pregnant at 17 is A-Ok

[Lisabob 13]

Not that I want to get into a big abortion debate (please) but acco, I think that at least some pro-choice people take the stance they do because their most honest answer to the matter truly is "I don't know" and therefore, they believe that it is better to let each individual figure it out for themselves rather than to have gov't impose a possibly arbitrary blanket solution to an unknowable issue on everyone.

 

As for the young Ms Palin, well I wish that every child who finds themselves in her challenging circumstances could have the love and support of their family. Certainly many of us know someone, maybe someone very close to us, who has struggled with similar circumstances. In that regard I can't imagine what else her parents could possibly have said to the national media. But to the extent that her daughter's pregnancy is a political issue at all (and here I'm in agreement with Obama that it really should not be), it is only an over-reaction to the hyper-moralizing and sometimes morally hypocritical grandstanding that some in the Republican party have engaged in, in the past. Not that this makes it right.

[SMT224 10]

The point of my initial post was not to set off a fire storm of accusations with regard to politics, especially the always hot button abortion issue. Here we are swinging away, and as far as I can see, missing the point entirely.

 

All of us Scouters work with kids to instill some sense of character. I personally see moral degradation all around us, and believe Scouting is a real positive force to stem this tide. However, as important as a Republican victory may be, is it worth pushing a teen pregnancy aside?

 

I know that some in this forum will now bare their teeth and growl what we have already discussed - that she is doing the best she can in a difficult situation, that the family has addressed the matter and dealt with it and should now be left alone, that this can be used as a positive lesson for other kids to abstain or be faced with a similar dilemma.

 

All of that rhetoric looks hard and well at the tree. But I'm talking about the forest - the overall broad idea that we are allowing desire for a political outcome to shove aside a significant moral issue.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

First, the second post to this thread should have read: What a crock! And the entire thread should have ended there.

 

That said, I agreed with 90% of the responses.

 

Re this spin off topic: As for myself, I could never understand those who proclaim to be "pro-life & pro-capital punishment

 

Abortion is the killing (some prefer to use the word murder) of an innocent and defenseless child. Some methods of which, are definitely more abhorrent than others but all seek to kill an innocent child.

 

Capital punishment is the killing of a convicted murderer (or child rapist/torturer if you leave in one of those few sane states). A murderer someone who takes an innocent life (for many and varying disgusting reasons) is not an innocent person. He deserves the sentence of death.

 

I dont see the confusion, and I certainly dont see a contradiction.

 

There have been logical arguments against capital punishment which I have pondered. And occasionally, those arguments have given me reason to pause...although I am not wholly convinced. But comparing capital punishment to abortion and arguing that its a matter of consistency is, well a crock!

 

[SMT224 10]

Hey Roster7 -

 

I'll tell you what a "crock" is - turning this discussion into a debate on abortion and capital punishment!

 

Amazing how those two idea can instantly polarize any discussion!

 

I suggest you start another thread and debate those issues as much as you want.

 

But thats not the point of this discussion!

[Rooster7 11]

SMT224 -

 

I'm just responding to several other posts made previous to mine. If anyone high jacked this thread (introducing the subject of abortion), it was done by someone else numerous posts ago. And several others responded to that post without any pointed objections from you.

 

Perhaps my succinct summary of your supposition has left you nonplus. Look on the bright side - I never said what was in the crock. Perhaps the proverbial pottery is filled with thought provoking ideas? ;-)

 

[Bob White 20]

SMT224 writes "Getting pregnant is not ok! Getting pregnant out of wedlock is not ok. But now all this is ok because they want McCain/Palin to get elected?"

 

Here is what bugs me personally about liberal democrats.

 

Democrats like teenage girls a lot.

Democrats do not mind them having sex otherwise they wouldn't be handing out condoms at schools. Democrats don't mind teenage girls having babies or they wouldn't have created a welfare program that rewards them for it. Democrats don't mind girls not being married and having children because for the most part democrats do not see a value in marriage and would happilly recognize "life partners" equally with married partners.

 

Yes, Democrats like young girls, what democrats do not like are defenseless babies inside young girls. So while they will not try to stop the cause, and while they will reward them after the birth, they will go to any length possible to keep them from being born.

 

Teenage girls will be of voting age in a few years probably in time to re-elect the democrats who made both their sex lives and the termination of their pregnancy easy and inexpensive. But the baby that was destroyed...that doesn't bother democrats at all.

 

If Palin's daughter wanted to abort her baby the dems would be celebrating her. The problem that democrats have is that she is keeping the baby and getting married, and those are two things that are repulsive and unimportant to liberal democrats.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, your post is completely ridiculous. I do not know where to start, so I won't even try. The whole thing is absurd. And quite frankly, it is way below the usual quality of your posts, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I find it difficult to believe you even wrote it.

[ghermanno 11]

Wow,

 

A lot of talk over someone else's little girl getting pregnant. Even more aguing over the AGE???

 

FYI: I was married in Nov 77. I was 17 (my wife was 18). NO, she was NOT pregnant. We are still married (although I am not sure why she puts up with me) after 30 years.

 

Age should not be the defining factor, maturity should be.

 

Pro choice/anti-abortion... Start your own thread.

[SMT224 10]

Hmmmm... Let me try again...

 

How do we deal with compromising moral values in order to win a political race?

 

This is not an abortion issue, it is not a republican vs democrat issue. It so happens that the spotlight is on the current republican candidate, but it could just as well be happening to a democratic candidate.

 

It appears to me that a significant moral issue is being or soon will be shoved aside and buried because it is more important to elect the candidate.

 

[acco40 95]

Our US senator was informed by the police and press that her husband was caught with a prostitute in a local hotel. As is policy (right or wrong) the police do not prosecute the "john" if he acts as a witness against the prostitute. So, should the senator be judged by the actions of her husband?

 

Should Mrs. Palin be judged by the actions of her daughter? I hope that she sees the fallacy of her sex-ed beliefs. I don't really think the GOP party platform will contain anything about it "being A-Ok" for 17 year olds to get pregnant - married or not. It used to be that divorce placed a scarlet letter on women. Just because Bristol was not sent away to the "lauderies" doesn't mean that her family or anyone else condoned her behavior but ...

[Bob White 20]

What moral issue do you see is at the core here SMT224? What moral code either republican or democratic says that a candidate should not run for office if her daughter is pregnant out of wed-lock?

 

In your original post you made this purely a GOP issue. It seems that is undefendable so now you are changing the conditions of the discussion.

 

If you want to look at moral values being put aside for political expediencey perhaps you would like to revisit former President Clinton's sexual activity in the Oval office with an intern and yet running for, and winning, election from a democratic base that did not care what few moral values he possessed.

 

So if the democrats did not care about Clinton's choices why should they be concerned about the choices of a 17 year old girl who is not running for any office.

 

The fact that the democratic party would try to make this an issue only reminds us of how a pregnant teen choosing to keep her baby shows more moral values than a party that would try to negate her mother's candidacy while still defending the former president's debauchery.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, building on the electioneering in his previous post, says:

 

The fact that the democratic party would try to make this an issue...

 

The Democrats have specifically not made this an issue. Barack Obama says it is not an issue. Please stop making things up.

[BadenP 93]

Look at the Republicans flip flop on the party's morals stand with this embarassing event. If the woman can't even get her own children to accept her values how can she expect the country to follow her lead. The Republican party is teetering at best and Palin will cost McCain the election in a big way. Maybe Sarah should have been teaching her promiscious daughter about birth control instead, at least there would not be an innocent child involved. Can you say hypocrite? Lets see how the geritol crowd at the convention try to shove this issue under the table. Thank you Ms. Palin for giving this election to Obama, lol.

[SMT224 10]

Bob White -

 

The issue is this... within both political parties there are spin machines that soften anything negative that a particular member or candidate may do. Right or wrong, they really are not allowed to be human - everything they do is judged and spun. Sometimes they do things so dumb that that they spin out of control - like Clinton did with that intern. The problem with this vast spin machine is that things that are clearly wrong are buried or softened through language so they don't negatively affect the parties standing with the public.

 

Now we have a situation where the daughter of one of the candidates is found to be out of bounds. The spin machine kicks in and the moral issues are softened. That is the problem. So now they push teen pregnancy away with language implying that this is no big deal, it's normal, it happens, don't get upset about it.

 

My issue is compromising moral values in order to win a political race. A significantly moral issue is being shoved aside and buried because it is more important to elect the candidate. And what is the end result? Condoning a behavior that has been softened because it was more important to get someone elected.

[Bob White 20]

What moral issue was pushed aside for an election, the moral decisons of a young girl who had sex, a situation that the democratic party is so sure cannot be controlled so they have schools distribute condoms?

 

The moral issue of sex outside of marriage that the dems ignored with President Clinton not just will in office but actualy IN the office.

 

Who do democrats demand greater personal responsibility from..a seventeen year old girl or the President of the United States. Evidently the girl.

 

The democrats cheered Obama when he said he would support his daughters choice to have abortions rather than be...and I quote "Punished with a baby". So here is a child who made a bad decision and is going to keep the baby and Dems are willing to punish her mother. Imagine the political fodder they would have made of her had she chosen to abort her child.