B. Palin's pregnancy -- Is it fair to discuss? Is it relevant?

Solat13 · September 2008

Has anyone actually seen anything from a legitimate news source (I don't consider left or right blogs as legitimate) that says Palin was anti-birth control? Time Magazine says she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization.

And as we all know birth control is not 100%. So we really shouldn't speculate what happened with Palin's daughter. It could be that her and her bf tried to use protection and it didn't work or broke or it could be she rebelled on her parents. Either way, she's having the baby and it shouldn't be an issue.

digster · September 2008

Solat13 wrote:

Has anyone actually seen anything from a legitimate news source (I don't consider left or right blogs as legitimate) that says Palin was anti-birth control? Time Magazine says she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_opposed_sexed.html

It's not necessarily anti-birth control, but it shows she supports abstinence only education.

cincybearcat · September 2008

scb wrote:

I like to think I would. Hell, I plan to have condoms around for my daughter or son to use without having to ask. I would even like to get her on a more reliable form of birth control BEFORE she starts having sex. Of course I would also talk to her about all the reasons why it's a bad idea to have sex at a young age, etc. And it would probably be extremely hard to not freak out if I found out she was having sex.

But I think our children's health needs outweigh our needs as parents to bury our heads in the sand and think our kids are better than the others. I've seen the results of the bury-you-head-in-the-sand method and they can be devastating. How is saying, "I'll just pray that my kids never have sex instead of giving them the tools they need to be safe" any better than the kids saying, "I'll just pray I won't get pregnant instead of practicing safe sex"?

(Note: I'll admit that I'm not a parent. But, while no one ever knows for sure how they would handle any situation, this is how I would like to handle this one should it ever arise.)

But I also see trying to keep a 15-17 year-old son of daughter from having sex as benefiting their health needs...hence the conundrum (spelling?).

There's a fine line between keeping them safe and promoting or enabling poor choices....hence, the issue the Palin's now face as a family.

So, judging others on this is a pretty dumbass thing to do I think.

cincybearcat · September 2008

digster wrote:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_opposed_sexed.html

It's not necessarily anti-birth control, but it shows she supports abstinence only education.

You know, some promote abstinence only education because they feel it's up to the parents to talk about birth control...so it's not as evil as it sounds...just don't want the government educating their children on what they think is a fmaily matter.

digster · September 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

You know, some promote abstinence only education because they feel it's up to the parents to talk about birth control...so it's not as evil as it sounds...just don't want the government educating their children on what they think is a fmaily matter.

Well, in that same answer she also opposes allowing teenagers easy access to contraceptives. However, true; she may have a stack of condoms at the door for her children to use, and may explain all the options to them. I don't know and don't care (though I do admittedly doubt that is the case). I was repeating what she'd said on the matter.

But if they don't want the government educating their children on the matter, why do they want abstinence taught in the classroom? Why would they want any type of sex ed in the classroom? It's the bind I think social conservatives are stuck in; they don't believe in a woman's right to choose, but also don't believe in easy access to birth control, or to have it taught in their classroom. Catch-22, IMO.

_ · September 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

But I also see trying to keep a 15-17 year-old son of daughter from having sex as benefiting their health needs...hence the conundrum (spelling?).

There's a fine line between keeping them safe and promoting or enabling poor choices....hence, the issue the Palin's now face as a family.

But this seems to suggest that you can't try to prevent them from having sex while at the same time providing them with the means to be safe if they do it anyway. There is no fine line, since birth control doesn't enable poor choices. We all know that teenagers need no enabling whatsoever when it comes to having sex; they just need enabling when it comes to being safe about it, which is a good choice. Just because my car came with a seatbelt doesn't mean I'm going to drive more recklessly.

cincybearcat wrote:

So, judging others on this is a pretty dumbass thing to do I think.

I'm not trying to judge others; I'm judging what's the best method of preventing teen pregnancy (which I think should be the concern pf anyone who cares about teenagers).

_ · September 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

You know, some promote abstinence only education because they feel it's up to the parents to talk about birth control...so it's not as evil as it sounds...just don't want the government educating their children on what they think is a fmaily matter.

I would believe that if abstinence-only curricula wasn't anti-birth control. It's not like it's neutral, ya know. So if that's why people promote it, maybe they should take the time to learn a little more about what they're promoting (for other people's kids).

decides2dream · September 2008

digster wrote:

Well, in that same answer she also opposes allowing teenagers easy access to contraceptives. However, true; she may have a stack of condoms at the door for her children to use, and may explain all the options to them. I don't know and don't care (though I do admittedly doubt that is the case). I was repeating what she'd said on the matter.

But if they don't want the government educating their children on the matter, why do they want abstinence taught in the classroom? Why would they want any type of sex ed in the classroom? It's the bind I think social conservatives are stuck in; they don't believe in a woman's right to choose, but also don't believe in easy access to birth control, or to have it taught in their classroom. Catch-22, IMO.

exactly.

and.....

scb wrote:

But this seems to suggest that you can't try to prevent them from having sex while at the same time providing them with the means to be safe if they do it anyway. There is no fine line, since birth control doesn't enable poor choices. We all know that teenagers need no enabling whatsoever when it comes to having sex; they just need enabling when it comes to being safe about it, which is a good choice. Just because my car came with a seatbelt doesn't mean I'm going to drive more recklessly.

I'm not trying to judge others; I'm judging what's the best method of preventing teen pregnancy (which I think should be the concern pf anyone who cares about teenagers).

EXACTLY!

(i'd also think it would be of concernf or those who seem most concerned about the rights of the unborn....if there is no conception, then there is no issue...beyond society and/or parents trying to control their children's actions and morality)

digster · September 2008

decides2dream wrote:

(i'd also think it would be of concernf or those who seem most concerned about the rights of the unborn....if there is no conception, then there is no issue...beyond society and/or parents trying to control their children's actions and morality)

You got it...I'm pro-choice, but it's due to the lack of any other options. I'd be more than happy if there was never the need to have any abortions, but for that to be the case, there'd need to be a sea change in how contraceptive use is taught in schools, how it's viewed by society, etc. Unfortunately, I think that still may be a long way off.

Another fun nugget about the Bush administration; I've long thought that their increased focus and aid towards HIV in Africa was one of their best achievements (granted, there weren't many to choose from). However, I then found out that alot of the funds for sex education included in the aid money sent to the continent were contingent on the fact that the sex-ed programs recieving the money taught abstinence-only. Way to go George.

decides2dream · September 2008

digster wrote:

You got it...I'm pro-choice, but it's due to the lack of any other options. I'd be more than happy if there was never the need to have any abortions, but for that to be the case, there'd need to be a sea change in how contraceptive use is taught in schools, how it's viewed by society, etc. Unfortunately, I think that still may be a long way off.

Another fun nugget about the Bush administration; I've long thought that their increased focus and aid towards HIV in Africa was one of their best achievements (granted, there weren't many to choose from). However, I then found out that alot of the funds for sex education included in the aid money sent to the continent were contingent on the fact that the sex-ed programs recieving the money taught abstinence-only. Way to go George.

i have said the very same often enough in this forum - how i wish for the non-neccesssity of abortion except in extreme cases of need. i think it IS very, very possible...but it would require weeping changes and yes, HUGE changes on the social stigma front. i may be a dreamer...but i am also quite realistic.

people can go on and on with their morality...and that's all well and good, that is your OWN. you cannot force, not even your own child...not to have sex. it has gone on forever.....so why not face that reality? let all be informed, prepared, and unjudged for doing so.

as to georgey-boy......sadly, nothing surprises me.

digster · September 2008

decides2dream wrote:

i have said the very same often enough in this forum - how i wish for the non-neccesssity of abortion except in extreme cases of need. i think it IS very, very possible...but it would require weeping changes and yes, HUGE changes on the social stigma front. i may be a dreamer...but i am also quite realistic. people can go on and on with their morality...and that's all well and good, that is your OWN. you cannot force, not even your own child...not to have sex. it has gone on forever.....so why not face that reality? let all be informed, prepared, and unjudged for doing so.

as to georgey-boy......sadly, nothing surprises me.

Exactly, it is about personal freedom, which used to be a tenet of the Republican Party. I have a feeling that if the abortion issue had been an issue fifty years ago, Republicans of that period might have had a very different view. Freedom and personal liberty at all costs. But lately the Republican Party has been all about social issues. It seems to be that the young stars of the party (Arnold, Bobby Jindal in LA, etc) seem to be moving the party away from the 'moral majority' stranglehold. I sincerely hope that trend continues in the years to come.

cincybearcat · September 2008

scb wrote:

But this seems to suggest that you can't try to prevent them from having sex while at the same time providing them with the means to be safe if they do it anyway. There is no fine line, since birth control doesn't enable poor choices. We all know that teenagers need no enabling whatsoever when it comes to having sex; they just need enabling when it comes to being safe about it, which is a good choice. Just because my car came with a seatbelt doesn't mean I'm going to drive more recklessly.

I'm not trying to judge others; I'm judging what's the best method of preventing teen pregnancy (which I think should be the concern pf anyone who cares about teenagers).

I wasn't talking about anyone here judging...just in general, sorry for the confusion.

cincybearcat · September 2008

scb wrote:

But this seems to suggest that you can't try to prevent them from having sex while at the same time providing them with the means to be safe if they do it anyway. There is no fine line, since birth control doesn't enable poor choices. We all know that teenagers need no enabling whatsoever when it comes to having sex; they just need enabling when it comes to being safe about it, which is a good choice. Just because my car came with a seatbelt doesn't mean I'm going to drive more recklessly.

You don't see how giving your kid a condom might be enabling a behavior that you disagree with? I'm not saying it's right one way or the other here, but it's hardly an easy choice to make, for me at least.

Don't have sex!!!! But here's some condoms. ?

decides2dream · September 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't see how giving your kid a condom might be enabling a behavior that you disagree with? I'm not saying it's right one way or the other here, but it's hardly an easy choice to make, for me at least.

Don't have sex!!!! But here's some condoms. ?

how is it enabling?
do you not believe your child would make their own choice with or without your consent? did you follow your parent's wishes in regards to sex...alcohol...drugs....etc?

i think it is VERY possible to express your pov, your beliefs....but ALSO have your kids informed, know where to go for even more information if needed, feel they can discuss such with you....and know while you have your beliefs and hopes/desires for them, what you wish for them...you do realize it is their own choice. so while you encourage them to make decisions wisely, you can yes, 'prepare them'....in case they DO decide to make a choice different from what you would prefer. one can explain why it's the best idea not to have sex...but sure, be realistic and know it's a deicsion they will make on their own, and be sure to have them prepared for that.

obviously, many can and do disagree with me here.....but i really do think it's possible...and probably for the best, healthiest parent/child relationship. you really can't stop your kids from being sexually active, but you can greatly reduce the chances of unintended pregnancy and disease. obviously, you can influence their thoughts and behaviors....but you cannot 'make' them think as you do...and we all know how much 'thinking' goes on oftentimes in these situations in any case. it would be great to see a young teen prepared, informed.....and making wise decisions, even if they do decide to have intercourse.

i think it is very much in line with being anti-alcohol/drugs...but always infomring your child poor decisions or not, to call for a ride no matter what, if they are in no condition to drive or in the company of those in no condition to drive. i don't consider it enabling.....i consider it helping to protect.

NMyTree · September 2008

Everyone mind your own fuckin' business and keep your nose out of everyone's else's pants and bedroom.

cincybearcat · September 2008

decides2dream wrote:

how is it enabling?
do you not believe your child would make their own choice with or without your consent? did you follow your parent's wishes in regards to sex...alcohol...drugs....etc?

i think it is VERY possible to express your pov, your beliefs....but ALSO have your kids informed, know where to go for even more information if needed, feel they can discuss such with you....and know while you have your beliefs and hopes/desires for them, what you wish for them...you do realize it is their own choice. so while you encourage them to make decisions wisely, you can yes, 'prepare them'....in case they DO decide to make a choice different from what you would prefer. one can explain why it's the best idea not to have sex...but sure, be realistic and know it's a deicsion they will make on their own, and be sure to have them prepared for that.

obviously, many can and do disagree with me here.....but i really do think it's possible...and probably for the best, healthiest parent/child relationship. you really can't stop your kids from being sexually active, but you can greatly reduce the chances of unintended pregnancy and disease. obviously, you can influence their thoughts and behaviors....but you cannot 'make' them think as you do...and we all know how much 'thinking' goes on oftentimes in these situations in any case. it would be great to see a young teen prepared, informed.....and making wise decisions, even if they do decide to have intercourse.

i think it is very much in line with being anti-alcohol/drugs...but always infomring your child poor decisions or not, to call for a ride no matter what, if they are in no condition to drive or in the company of those in no condition to drive. i don't consider it enabling.....i consider it helping to protect.

Having your kids informed and actually giving them the condom are 2 very different things.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand what you're saying. I'm just working my way through figuring out what I'd do, I have some time to get ready for it though, thankfully.

I do agree with your anti-drug/alcohol statement. In that scenario though, they've already made a poor decision and you are protecting them from making a bigger one. This could be a direct corelation to the sex issue, but it may not be. I have to think abotu that...good post.

meistereder · September 2008

I heard about parents giving their kids promise rings and bracelets as a vow to their parents that they willl remain virgins until they are married. Like, the father and his daughter each wear a ring.

1. Creepy.
2. They surveyed the participants and guess what -- the kids still had sex. Shocker.

cincybearcat · September 2008

meistereder wrote:

I heard about parents giving their kids promise rings and bracelets as a vow to their parents that they willl remain virgins until they are married. Like, the father and his daughter each wear a ring.

1. Creepy.
2. They surveyed the participants and guess what -- the kids still had sex. Shocker.

Yeah, I always thought that was pretty creepy too.

slightofjeff · September 2008

digster wrote:

You got it...I'm pro-choice, but it's due to the lack of any other options.

I know. If only there were a way people who didn't want their children could bring them to term and have them, and then give them to people who want children, but for whatever reason can't have them.

If only someone would invent such a system. But, alas, no such fantasy land exists.

Abort, away!

_ · September 2008

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't see how giving your kid a condom might be enabling a behavior that you disagree with? I'm not saying it's right one way or the other here, but it's hardly an easy choice to make, for me at least.

Don't have sex!!!! But here's some condoms. ?

I see how some people might think that, but I don't believe it's true.

I think instead of just oversimplifying the issue by just saying, "YOU BETTER NOT BE HAVING SEX!!!" we should teach our children that sex is a normal part of life, but that we need to use good judgement when deciding when to have it, with whom, and with what kind of protection. Hopefully then they'll actually think about all of this in its full complicated glory before proceeding instead of disregarding what we say entirely.

I'll leave you with this quote by Butch Hancock (which was quoted in an article I read about why we have such a hard time controlling birth in the U.S.):

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."

B. Palin's pregnancy -- Is it fair to discuss? Is it relevant?

Comments

Categories