The LA Times has a good story on Palin's views on sex education and contraception:
Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education.
The Republican vice presidential candidate says students should be taught about condoms. Her running mate -- and the party platform -- disagree.
Palin's running mate, John McCain, and the GOP platform say children should be taught that abstinence until marriage is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. Palin's position is less clear.
In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.
"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau. …
Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.
McCain's campaign did not respond to questions about whether Palin's position is inconsistent with his. But earlier, a campaign spokesperson said McCain believes abstinence is "the only safe and responsible alternative." . . .
Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"
Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."
But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."
"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."
"school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools"
was her problem with the choice. That isn't education.
This is not difficult to understand. If people cannot read well enough to grasp her position, that's a problem with their reading skills, not her position.
For those who may not understand the use of the term "explcit" in this context, you should examine some of the "sex education" materials actually being used in schools. What is being called "explicit" are images that are arguably pornographic. Now, most of them are intended for gender-segregated classes (so the girls only see girls in the images, and boys only see boys), but too often the schools don't get that and show the materials to sniggering and embarassed mixed classes.
Before you dismiss the concerns of parents about "sex education" you really need to see what sometimes goes on in such classes.
At one point, several decades ago, my fairly liberal Presbyterian Church invited Planned Parenthood in to provide sex education for its middle school aged kids (Utah provides little if any sex education in the public classroom). I thought the training Planned Parenthood did was good--but I also thought parts of it were fairly explicit--and certainly more explicit than I thought appropriate for a public classroom (which is a very different forum than a church setting where parents were an involved part of process).
for example: many people do not know that vaseline and other oil-based lubricants actually degrade condoms. Oil breaks down latex resulting in a condom breaking with very little friction. You are supposed to only use water-based lubricants.
Sounds like a pretty sensible position to me.
Put it on inside out?
Put it on your finger?
Inquiring minds want to know.
{FWIW, 50 years ago, before sex education, boys figured it out without cucumber demonstrations, explicit videos (Sally rides a Stallion), or even Daddy's stumbling description.}
Filling it with lime jello and dropping it from the top of a building is one way. And has been done.
add in the fact that a lot of adolescent sexual experiences combine alcohol with people who have very little experience with condoms and mistakes happen.
Mostly by failing to remove it from the package, I suspect.
Regardless, I'm glad that this issue is getting press. I was getting tired of trying to argue with people that accused her Christian values of failing her children. Now will they blame comprehensive education for failing Briston Palin?
I think she would probably have to answer this, but it appears she supports the discussion of birth control, but may be opposed to more explicit materials.
I am thinking about years ago when Jocelyn Elder's advocated oral and other types of non penetrative sex in lieu of penetration to prevent pregnancy.
Come on, how do you "improperly" use a condom.
Put it on inside out?
Put it on your finger?
Is this a serious question? I think one common problem with improper use is the removal of the condom. You have to be very careful to hold on to the condom as you pull out after ejaculation, because it may slip off and dump its contents where you didn't want them to go in the first place.
Also, when putting it on it is important to leave a little bit at the tip to hold the contents-although a lot of styles now come with a built in receptical area.
I recall an earlier discussion of Palin's statement that she believed Creationism should be taught in public schools; when pressed on that one, she pulled back to "encouraging open debate of the various alternative theories..."
A pattern developing?
I'm just askin'. . . .
Now, I have the silly question for the day: why on earth does it matter what the President (or Vice-President, one heartbeat away etc) thinks of sex ed? I mean, this Constitution thingie tells us that bills originate in the Congress (although the Pres can certainly try to get legislation introduced). Sure, the Pres can veto a bill that he (or she!) does not like, but this Art. I, Sec. 8 doesn't seem to say much about state public education.
But, honestly, I don't even remember seeing a quote saying she is for "abstinence until marriage" programs. The only thing I saw that suggested she was an abstinence-only advocate was her statement on a questionnaire that explicit programs would not find her support.
You really must underestimate the ingenuity of of the average teenager if you have want to know how condoms can be used improperly. What are probably the 4 most common examples of improper condom usages; failure to leave space at the end, failure to use a condom before penetration and waiting until before ejaculation, failure to remove the condom after ejaculation, and failure to wait until full tumescence is reached before putting the condom on. Really though, teenagers are very creative at finding ways to misuse things and no doubt there are thousands of other ways to improperly use condoms.
[humour]This is an example of explicit sex education that some people would object to.[/humour]
In America, I think the three most common mistakes are:
1) Not making sure the condom stays on while pulling out
2) Using oil-based lubricants, and
3) Reusing condoms
I live about ten blocks from Palin, and in our neighborhood, there are a lot of backyard inventors.
She meant "pro-contraption."
Am I mistaken or can parents opt out of "madatory" vaccines for their kids?
Once you see a person die of cervical cancer that is VERY preventable, you might see why someone might be against banning the vaccine under the false assumption that it increases premarital sex.
Putting a vaccine in the list of mandatory vaccines would at least allow for the girl/woman to be in the discussion as to what she wanted to do with her own body.
It seems that much on the right is driven by fear - fear of your daughter having sex - which she will do anyway independent of your fear. Face facts. Kids have sex - we should educate, protect and love them. fear doesn't help.
If I hold my breath waiting for a politician who doesn't change his/her standing on something when a massive public opinion shift occurs, I don't think I'd ever end up breathing, or voting for that matter.
I'll even wager that anyone here would be quite hard pressed to find local politicians that have vocally opposed federal projects and or federal money within their own constituencies. It's "creating jobs" and "helping the local economy" when it's you. It's "pork" when it's someone else.
TMI!
Depends on what state you live in-some states only allow you to opt out for very specific reasons-such as a religious reason, others allow parents to opt out of any required vaxes as long as they file specific paperwork.
Are there any states to date that actually require the vaccine though?
Also, at least among doctors there is some debate over whether or not 12 is the best time to give the vaccine.
I have 14 and 13 year old daughters. Their doctor wants to push giving the vaccine more into the 14-16 year old range, mostly because the majority of girls begin having sex after age 16, and the general consensus on the vaccine is that a booster will be required somewhere in the 5-10 year point, which would put all the girls getting the vaccine at 12 at their peak in sexual activity and a time when the girls are out of the home and may not be so diligent about getting a booster vaccine.
Because she doesn't harbor the irrational hate for them that is so in vogue among the people in the know? I don't think McCain's ever hated them, but he's made it pretty clear in the past he'd rather not be associated with them in any way. The perception was that this had to do with (likely wise) political expedience and not principle.
For that matter how complicated is sex education anyway? Give all the kids a pamphlet and let them read about it. A lot of us never had any sex education and yet somehow we figured out what to do and what not to do. How did human beings ever procreate all these thousands of years anyway.
I have been told by teenaged girls that they were surprised that all the guys think about, 24/7 is sex. I wasn't, of course, having been a teenaged boy at one time. But the reality is that hormones are raging then, and sex for some is inevitable, regardless of how adversely that is going to affect their life's opportunities. And it is naive to pretend that some of them aren't going to have sex. For them, being taught how to have safe sex is important.
Teaching that abstinence is better, but if a kid isn't going to be able to be abstinent, how to have sex safely, just makes sense to me.
because the federal government pays for sex education, or could pay for it if they wanted to. Think of abstinence only, where the federal government forced school districts to adopt abstinence only sex education by offering to cover the tab for it. I imagine the federal government also could pay for you to get laid if you
bribecontribute to a congressman who wouldn't mind earmarking it.As an enterprising senior I did quite well by supplying underclassmen with condoms that they were incapable or unwilling to purchase themselves.
How can tomorrow's young entrepreneurs get their start if they have to compete with the gov't giving away their product?
You nailed it. And the courts let them get away with it.
Oh yes, of course.
Order of the Coif:
"Come on, how do you 'improperly' use a condom."
Mostly by failing to remove it from the package, I suspect.
Oh yes, of course.
Well, a condom is 100% effective if left in its package, and held tightly between the knees during intercourse.
Do you happen to have that congressman's number handy?
I never said I wanted to ban the vaccine. But considering that every state in the nation is trying to pass a bill making it mandatory for public school, I'd rather tell the public school system to go to hell than let them make health decisions for my family. I don't believe in paying a few hundred dollars on some shot that automatically assumes that your daughter will, in fact, have premarital sex.
is there any time of day (or night) when a teenage boy ISN'T at "full tumescence?" :)
Others have mentioned the problem of petroleum jelly used as a lubricant. There's an awful lot of guys who don't slip the condom on until they are ready to insert--and yes, even before penetration, there's some risk of sneaky sperm cells getting going and fertilizing an egg. It happens.
While not common, I've read of incidents where Johnny and Suzie assumed that they didn't need to use a condom for anal sex, and were surprised, a month or two later, to discover that semen managed to slide on down and in.
And of course, even when properly used, condoms do occasionally break. I've had it happen once. I know a couple who attended the same church whose marriage plans were...accelerated after a condom failure. It was his first time, her first time, and I guess all that enthusiasm was more than the poor overwhelmed piece of latex could take! It all worked out for them okay, and they are still married, the last time I was in San Jose and saw them.
Look. My Church is not opposed to the vaccine. If Catholics like it, everyone likes it. The concern really is that girls will get the shot and consider themselves immune from STDs. Which they won't be.
I just saw an add for an ED pill yesterday. The voice-over guy makes it clear that this script does not reduce the risk of pregnancy or STDs. Imagine that: A medicine that increases your frequency of intercourse might actually result in a greater likelihood of pregnancy of the clap! Whooduh thunkit?!!
The sex drive is so deeply ingrained and irrational that even the college-educated 50+ professional men with good health plans and access to doctors can't be trusted to know that a pill that enables them them 'bone up on Dr. Johnson' might came with consequences. What hope do teenagers have?
Yes: For about 10-12 minutes after he has sex.
not to mention that generally speaking, a parent has to OPT OUT of the vaccine. why should the burden be on the parent to opt out vs. opt IN, considering the invasiveness of the procedure, etc.?
I didn't catch that article. Was that in the summer Foreign Affairs? Because I accidentally left that one at O'Hare.
1. Your daughter may have premarital sex against her will. There is a lot of rape out there.
2. Your daughter is going to marry some guy who had premarital sex, and is carrying HPV, and doesn't know it.
3. Your daughter may eventually marry someone whose wife died, or left him, and he has HPV, and doesn't know it.
The harsh reality is that hormone-deranged kids are very nearly crazy in those years. (I remember well!) Encouraging them to wait until adulthood is nearly hopeless--but even getting them to wait a year or two, in the hopes that the blood flow returns to the brain (for the boys), is worth the effort.
Also I wanted to point out that all of the positions mentioned in the post are perfectly consistent. One can perfectly believe that abstinence is the only sure fire method and should be encouraged but given that not everyone will succeed one ought to teach condom usage to mitigate the harms.
I mean describing herself as against explicit sex education and the like is a way to assure people that she isn't a 'crazy' liberal type who wants to encourage their children to have bisexual premarital sex. While this worry has more to do with perception than reality it is nevertheless true that some people assume that's what you mean when you start talking about any kind of sexual education.
---------
Leaving aside the issue of Palin for a moment I do happen to think we ought to be giving older teens the message that sex is normal and fun while at the same time warning them of the emotional as well as physical dangers that it poses. I find it quite ironic that the supposed reason that people wish to avoid sex education or non-abstinence programs is the worry that pre-marital sexual relations will cause psychological harm thus ensuring that teens are never given a heads up about what to look for. It would save a lot of pain and anguish if teen girls were warned their first time being penetrated might be difficult and they shouldn't assume things will work nicely the first time if they haven't practiced on themselves. It's a mean thing to do to young couples (and women in particular) to tell them they have to wait till their wedding and not warn them that (short of great pain) they might not be able to have sex at all that night. Also telling people to wait often causes girls to avoid having sex in decent good relationships with nice boys increasing the chance that their first experience will be while drunk or in a period of emotional crisis with someone pushing them into it. Not to mention the harm caused by pursuing marriage for the sake of sex, especially when you don't know if you are sexually compatible.
Frankly, I don't see why some parent's uncomfortability with these opinions should mean schools shouldn't teach them. It doesn't work this way in any other area. We don't stop telling kids about evolution because some parents would prefer they didn't hear it. We don't keep kids in the dark about modern medical benefits because a parent might be a scientologist why should sex be any different?
NYU JD:
That sounds like an urban legend to me. It's a nice joke and it's the sorta thing people would say was true to make it a bit funnier.
Straw man, much? No one said anything at all about banning Gardasil, just questioned the wisdom of making it mandatory (or mandatory with opt-out procedures) for 11-year-old girls.
We don't require people to read Harry Potter, but that doesn't mean it's a banned book.....
Don't look it up on Google! It's a trap!
Well, if you tried to teach kids that, generally, teenage boys think about having sex 24/7, and girls have a huge range of desires, you'll be called out by the Left for being sexist.
The elephant in the room: girls (and boys) are reaching puberty much earlier. Back in the day, girls would hit puberty around 16, and the hormones wouldn't kick in until the late teen years. Now that elementary-school girls are getting their periods, and boys seem to be on a similarly accelerated track, middle-schoolers are acting like high-school kids. There is no way that a 12-year-old is emotionally ready to have sex (I doubt that many 18-year-olds are, even, but there's ranges of preparedness), but that's not what their bodies are saying.
I don't think that "fun" quite does it justice, and perhaps calling it that in some sort of effort to be hip may be part of the problem. Smoking cigarettes was once considered fun, until people figured out that doing so rewires your brain. Sex carries with it similar, if not more pronounced, effects.
So we can make them really, REALLY curious to know what the big deal is all about? Brilliant!
I would also point out that some of us parents are nervous about the safety of the vaccine as it relates to giving it to pre pubescent and pubescent girls. The majority of the testing was done in adult and post pubescent women. I am not sure that I want to run right out and get my child a vaccine that just came on the market.
But then I waited over 4 years before getting the chicken pox vaccine and might have waited longer had my youngest daughter not been diagnosed with asthma.
I am not opposed to vaccines, I am just cautious about new ones.
I also agree completely with my doctor's issues with giving a vaccine that will need a booster in 5-10 years to girls whose vax may be wearing out at a time when they are probably the least likely to get a booster for it.
I don't think the goal of the vax is a wrong one, and even if it works for some of the strains that is better than none of the strains, but I am cautious by nature and would rather not have the government telling me I have to get the vaccine for my kids before I am confident that it is safe. Actually I am not convinced this one ever needs to be a required vax. The other deseases we vax for are for things kids can reasonably pass around and catch in a school environment-HPV is caught through sex.
Right on.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned double-bagging yet. Surprise -- two condoms are actually worse (i.e., more likely to break) than one!
Not to mention they often operate under a "it can't happen to me" philosophy when it comes to almost any decision that involves risk.
Perhaps this explains the decline in teenage pregnancies - middle-aged teachers telling teens that sex is "fun". What better way to convince them to avoid it!
Best,
Ben
I don't know what kind of sex you are having but I certainly would say that it's fun. It's certainly not boring and I always found it enjoyable. What more do you want for something to be fun?
I've never particularly liked cigarettes many people do find them fun. People find doing heroin, E and cocaine fun as well that's why they do them. Being fun and being a good idea are hardly the same thing.
But I do think cigarettes provide a good lesson for this situation. One of the reasons we got into so much trouble with cigarettes is that we went with what various political interest groups said and vague intuitions (everyone smokes it can't be that bad) rather than relying on the science. We should rely on the science for our attitudes to sex as well. We should agree that our school policy should implement what scientific studies suggest is the best guess at increasing people's happiness.
That means we should do trials where we survey kids about the number of negative sexual experiences they have had after dividing them up randomly into different kind of sex education classes. If (absent evidence of organized campaigns to bias the outcomes) they show that kids educated with abstinence only have the least number of negative outcomes fine, if it's kids educated with a pure "here is a condom" then that's fine or if it's kids given extra information about what to expect that is reason to pursue that strategy.
On the longer term we can of course check out the effects of these teachings on long term life quality. However, other things being equal, people do tend to enjoy sex and feel guilty when they have it after being told they shouldn't so until we find evidence that these gains are outweighed by the harms we should avoid encouraging abstinence.
----
thebromophile:
I think you were being sarcastic but in case not David Warner really has the compelling answer here. In fact I would argue that one of the benefits about being more upfront about this stuff is that you simultaneously reduce the guilt and ignorance factors while potentially even discouraging risky or rash sex.
I mean the sense that sex is forbiddeen and mysterious really adds to the attraction of it for teens. If it's just something that their parents and teachers openly admit and feel no shame to talk about it (in generalt, like your medical conditions you don't need to tell us details about your private life) then it's just another thing people do and there is less allure to doing it sneakily.
Alligator:
Actually, two condoms used correctly are significantly safer. I read a quite well done study that demonstrated this by running trials in some brothel.
Thus conclusively demonstrating that this is NOT the best of all possible worlds.
Yeah. You and my wife.
How would this all change if it was an HIV vaccine? I also think that sex viruses are reasonably passed around among school aged kids. Kids are much more likely to get HPV than Hepatitis B or Polio and none of these are passed in school. If I had to choose one vaccine of HepB, Polio or HPV for my daughter I would choose HPV strictly on probability.
Strange as it may seem to some in the crowd, many women actively dislike immediate withdrawal by the male. This behsvior, however apropriate when visting hour neighborhood sex worker, is actually discouraged by (a) females having an emtionanal interaction (b) females not wishing to feel like kleenexes to be dicarded or (c) (dare I say it) females hoping to climax soon themselves.
But, dang with that [partial] loss of tumescense and all, now the male is "using a condom improperly".
Soon one of the regular trolls squealing about "lies about consoms will show up - if he is not involved with his emotionally uninvolved partner or hooker this evening.
You are arguing from the perspective of what you would vax your child for.
The reason for requiring vaxes in order for children to attend school is because kids are required to attend, are in close proximity to each other and are breathing and passing their nasal secretions around.
Pretty much every other vax that is required are passed in ways that do not require sexual contact. Many of them are airborne and therefore an infected child at school poses a threat to all children in the same space.
HPV and even an HIV vax are passed only through sexual contact. Something that doesn't occur at school-or at least shouldn't occur and is against the rules in pretty much every student handbook I have ever seen.
Schools have good reason to require kids have airborne and contact (although not the sexual kind) desease vaxes because the school can't control the environment well enough to protect well kids from sick kids.
I don't think you can make that same argument for HPV or HIV (assuming one existed). You can make the argument that vaxing kids is a good idea and list those reasons, but these deseases are unlikely to be passed around in a school environment. Kids of school age may be passing them to each other, but it isn't at school.
I think requirements for vaxes in order to attend school she pertain to a specific compelling reason for the schools to require them-I just don't think you can make that argument for sexually transmitted deseases even if you can make the argument that it is wise to vax for them.
We are discussing mandatory vaxes-where a child has to have it in order to attend school-not whether the vax itself should exist-two different debates entirely.
It's a question of credibility. Same for deterring drug use. If you only give kids the arguments why they shouldn't do something, without acknowledging the obvious, that there are reasons so many people do it anyway, they see you as a hack.
Getting closer.
Coincidentally, I think my condom-on-a-banana sex ed class in high school taught me that two were worse than one. Is the study online? If not, do you have a cite or some searchable details (title, year, etc.)? It looks interesting -- and apparently I need to read it!
You're going to have to provide evidence for all of this. It sounds like total bs from a scientific perspective that in one or two generations, one or more populations of humans suddenly exhibited an earlier maturation with no selective pressures even pointing that way. See also: arranged marriages for young teens in the (more distant) past.
Maybe it's late at night, so I'm as tolerant as I usually am, but your comment is unnecessarily snarky. "[L]ike total bs from a scientific perspective" and "going to have to provide evidence" (as if you are able to order me around) are totally inappropriate things to say to rational, intelligent adults.
In future interactions, please do not be so confrontational.
Without sending the spam filter into orbit, here are a few links: CNN article from 2000, noting the changes; and an article noting earlier onset of secondary sex characteristics (circa 1997). As factors such as birth order, body fat (which produces small amounts of oestrogen) and even birth weight correlate to age of menarche, this is not a surprising result.
I would also wonder if increased use of copper piping might be a factor. I remember learning in one of my biology classes that during World War II, U.S. Army doctors in some part of the Middle East noticed that the puberty fairy was arriving extraordinarily late for the local boys. A little investigation revealed that even the trace amounts of copper that most people get were absent in this region.
I missed something. "Thus conclusively demonstrating that this is NOT the best of all possible worlds."
[Gives monitor a very puzzled expression.]
TruePath,
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I should get better at using things like /sarcasm and ;) to convey that.
On a serious note: "I mean the sense that sex is forbiddeen and mysterious really adds to the attraction of it for teens."
For some teens, yes. I think that, at least for girls, this approach increases curiosity; boys, on the other hand, don't quite have the curiosity factor(if I understand male development correctly, boys experience a lot of this involuntarily at puberty, and then quickly learn how to bring about the sensation through other means). As one of my girl friends put it, if she doesn't have sex for a while, she tends to forget that it even exists. Telling girls that it's "fun" and "feels good" is, in some ways, news.
Believe it or not, when I was a kid back in the 1950s, abstinence actually worked. Not for lack of demands from the boys, but the girls remained united in saying "no". That regime lasted until a girl moved into town who "did it" and the walls came tumbling down.
Abstinence can work, but only in a local society that can maintain a moral code and keep the bad girls out. Urbanization has subverted our traditional rural and small town virtues, in many ways, not just sex.
A Sarah Palin thread where jukeboxgrad hasn't tried yet to misrepresent her statements and actions into something negative about McCain or her.
He's slipping.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Just for the record, I don't particularly believe that Bristol's problem traces back to "Christian values" or the nature of sex ed she did or didn't get. Those might be factors, but I'm inclined to think that primarily it's an issue of parents who are very busy doing something other than parenting her.
True, that kind of creature is hard to find. The problem is that Palin is pretending to be that kind of creature, even though she isn't one.
Because it's not actually true that she "by all accounts is less conservative than McCain on social issues." Here's an important example: she opposes a rape/incest exception for abortion.
td, I wouldn't want to let you down.
By the way, you've provided an impressive number of examples showing how I "misrepresent her statements and actions:" zero. I wonder if you could be troubled to come up with one. This should be very easy for you, since you're implying that it's a common occurrence.
1. Teenagers are interested in sex. This is natural.
2. We live in a culture that strongly promotes sex, adding gasoline to the fire of puberty.
3. Unless you supervise your teenagers at all times, they will find opportunities to fool around. As I discovered with my own daughter: she would tell us that she was at a girlfriend's house for a sleepover. Her girlfriend told her parents that she was at our house for a sleepover. Neither set of parents figured out where they actually were. (And the parents of the boyfriends either didn't care, or were out of town.)
4. Yes, lack of supervision can be a contributing factor. But teenagers are sneaky! If there's something that they want, they will find ways to get around you. Boy, do I know.
"It's a question of credibility. Same for deterring drug use. If you only give kids the arguments why they shouldn't do something, without acknowledging the obvious, that there are reasons so many people do it anyway, they see you as a hack."
Of course. My point was that its more than "fun", and kids know that too, and a teacher trying to push the Playboy Philosophy will have credibility issues every bit as serious as the bluenose will.
"I wish that this was true. I've read a plausible study of marriage and birth records for 17th century Puritan Massachusetts that suggests that 16% of brides walked up the aisle pregnant."
Why is everyone missing the distinction between unwed pregnancy and unwed motherhood? The former is indeed a problem, the latter a far more severe one, especially from the perspective of the child. Technology and, yes, moral progress is making offing the kid before it becomes a problem for anyone else increasingly untenable, whether we like it or not.
Shotgun marriages, while suboptimal, do serve a deterrent purpose as well.
Fascinating -- I had no idea marriage was still a form of punishment, seeing as it's so easy to dissolve a marriage nowadays.
I suspect it might be like, “okay kids, time to put the condoms on the bananas.”
Or think on South Parks when Mr. Garrison demonstrated, with the banana, how to put a condom on with just your mouth.
And I say that’s right.
karl newman
Why don’t you deal with her instead of your stereotypes of conservatives?
As for HPV virus, I would be hesitant for this reason: are we sure it is safe? Its pretty new, and testing ahead of time can only tell us so much. I would research it more if I had a daughter, but I wouldn’t want her to be part of a “guinea pig” generation.
Angus
And did they say how they “improperly used them.” Could it be 1) they didn’t know when to use it, or 2) just didn’t use it.
And jab gives several examples that doesn’t seem too explicit.
Dan
> Yeah, mandatory HPV vaccines for 12 year old girls save lives! Honestly, it's bullshit like that that would push me to keep my kids out of public school.
It would save their if they are raped by a carrier of the virus. But see above for my big concern.
Newly-minted
You are twisting her words to invent a contradiction that never existed.
Clayton
And I heard one time in the civil war, a cannonball hit a man in the balls, and when through him for miles and miles and rolled right into a woman as she was squatting to pee... and she got pregnant!
(ripped off of MST3K)
Jukebos
As usual, you are scum to drag her daughter into this.
Is that your position? All parents of pregnant teenagers are bad parents. Oh, and for bonus points, that means that Sarah Palin should have been home barefoot and pregnant, right?
The hackery coming out of the left these days is just sickening.
I think you should try to avoid making unwarranted assumptions. You should consider the possibility that I've actually raised one or more teenagers. You should also consider the possibility that I was once a teenager myself.
Naturally. The best possible parenting can still lead to bad results. The presence of ample parental supervision and attention does not guarantee success, but I think the absence of this enhances the likelihood of failure.
Exactly. And when I look at this particular family, I see parents who are very busy doing things other than raising children. There are only 24 hours in a day, even in Alaska. In other words, I see something very much unlike my picture of the best possible parenting. And I'm not saying mom isn't home enough. I'm saying a parent isn't home enough. If Todd was home, my analysis would be very different. But he's not.
This would be none of my business, except that judgment and character matter, and I don't like what I see.
I'm not evaluating the kids. I'm evaluating the parents. It's Palin's defenders who are holding her kids up as a shield, to try to deflect legitimate criticism.
And it was Palin herself who decided to "drag" her kids into this. For example, Palin displayed Trig to press photographers when he was three days old. This led to the obvious headlines that excited her base. Palin routinely invites us to evaluate her parental decisions, but expects us to close our eyes when we notice that those decisions are not uniformly impressive. Trouble is, it doesn't work that way.
Parents who seem to routinely put their careers ahead of their kids are bad parents, whether their kids get pregnant or not. Conversely, parents who consistently put their kids first are good parents, whether their kids get pregnant or not (because this can definitely happen despite the best efforts of the parents).
In this instance, Bristol's pregnancy just calls attention to what we can see without even talking about Bristol: both these parents seem inclined to put their careers ahead of their kids. There are many signs of this, which I've detailed in other threads. And there are also other signs of what looks to me like irresponsible parenting. This includes conceiving Trig, when neither parent seems terribly interested in staying home to take care of him.
Not exactly. As I've said, I don't necessarily see a need for a mom in the home (although I think there is no substitute for a mom in the early months). But I do see a need for a parent in the home. Given the number of kids, and the ages. Also, as I've said, I see what appears to be a problem with getting pregnant carelessly. That's obviously what Bristol did. I've explained why I think Trig was a careless pregnancy. Maybe you don't realize that Track was conceived before his parents were married. The pattern seems pretty clear.
Having lots of babies is great, provided the number doesn't exceed your willingness to stay home and take care of them (either you or your spouse). When the number does exceed your willingness to stay home and take care of them, that means you've been irresponsible. That's what I see, in this instance.
Someone who is considered an authority on this sort of thing said it this way:
Right. It doesn't turn out to support your position, so you don't think anything of it. Newsflash, most people who are directly supervising their children enough to preclude teen pregnancy are going to be impoverished. I don't think that's a solution.
Liar, she cut Alaska's budget.
As opposed to lying, I think this is just poor reading comprehension. On this one measure, she is more conservative than McCain, in others she is less conservative than the boilerplate GOP platform.
Fixed that for you.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
> You should consider the possibility that I've actually raised one or more teenagers.
He’ll have to be excused from thinking that since you are completely clueless about them, you neither had teenagers nor remembered what it was like to be one.
> I'm not evaluating the kids.
Doesn’t matter. You are still scum. This subject is and should be off limits.
> For example, Palin displayed Trig to press photographers when he was three days old.
It’s a canard I have debunked before, I believe in a thread you were on, to boot. You give the press a nibble so then they leave you alone.
> Parents who seem to routinely put their careers ahead of their kids are bad parents, whether their kids get pregnant or not.
Really? Then name some men in politics you would say the same thing of.
I'll start this off: Anyone who has grade-school age children, yet runs for the presidency. Regardless of party affilitation. Or whom I support in this election.
Next?
> Anyone who has grade-school age children, yet runs for the presidency. Regardless of party affilitation. Or whom I support in this election.
Any specific names come to mind?
How about Barrack Obama?
"Shotgun marriages, while suboptimal, do serve a deterrent purpose as well.
Fascinating -- I had no idea marriage was still a form of punishment, seeing as it's so easy to dissolve a marriage nowadays."
It doesn't have to be a punishment to be a deterrent. I may want a brand-new SUV and could qualify for an 84-month loan, but I'd rather not be upside down for 5 years. Ignoring the consequences of decisions doesn't make them disappear.
Think of the shotgun as the ultimate in local (contract) law enforcement. I'm (mostly) kidding.
It's none of their business!
U.S. out of my underwear!
The Fed's are going broke. This debate should remain at the municipal level or lower.
You're obviously referring to Obama. Do you mean to include or exclude Palin?
McCain did have one or two grade-school aged kids when he ran in 2000 (depending on where your cut-off for "grade-school" is).
You are not married, huh?
Hoosier:
I'll start this off: Anyone who has grade-school age children, yet runs for the presidency. Regardless of party affilitation. Or whom I support in this election.
You're obviously referring to Obama. Do you mean to include or exclude Palin?
Obama has young kids? And is running for president? Why wasn't I aware of this?
Yes, I'm talking about Obama. But I don't propose it as a rule, though I suspect it's a good choice. My point, however, is that the rule needs to apply to everyone or no one. None of this "Well, he only has two, and she has five." As if the number of children is the issue. The issue is, of course, the lack of time. He will have minimal time with his family, if he is president, regardless of the size of the family. Presidents are busy people.
I agree that the rules, criticisms and everything else that fills these threads should be applied even-handedly. Of course defining the rule and applying it to the facts -- there's the rub. You can find yourself wondering how the rule became, "No filibustering judicial nominations...[whisper whisper], umm, UNLESS the nominee would have lost anyway." And yes, that cuts both ways. One person's moral relativism being another's false equivalence, and all that.
And do you know whay?
Because I called it first!
For those counting noses -- not me, but for those who do -- the shock of "five" is bogus. The "kid" heading to Iraq seems to have grown up, no? And the pregnant teen could go either way. Some count both her and the coming baby as more duties for the maybe-Veep, but it seems equally valid to say that she'll be off in her own household, maybe in Alaska. So it's three kids, with one about 14 or so. Not so far from Obama's two. And the Pres has more concrete duties than the Veep.
Your two year old is very precocious. I just hope when s/he's on your lap in the car you don't also let him/her drive.