Bad decisions
Lori Viars, a mother of two and evangelical Christian from Lebanon, Ohio, cheered the candidacy as well as the decision of both Palin women to keep their babies. “The whole family is pro-life, and they put that into practice even when it’s not easy,” Ms. Viars said.
It’s nothing to cheer. Palin is adamantly anti-abortion, so her daughter age 17 has to have an unplanned baby, has to be a mother years too early, and has to marry her high school boyfriend, which is a recipe for disaster. ‘Bristol’ Palin has to ruin her life because of inflated concerns about a fetus.
What’s up with ‘Bristol,’ anyway? Chelsea, Bristol – what’s their point? Is everybody naming children after UK cities now? Are the kindergartens filling up with Cheltenham Smiths and Swindon Clarks and Nottingham Carters and Doncaster Joneses? And if so, why?
I’m awaiting the Grimethorpes and Grimsbys myself.
Well quite. I like to amuse myself with companions for the Chelseas of the world – Brixton, Acton, Mitcham, Tottenham.
Well, Bristol certainly couldn’t have an abortion and tarnish Mum’s image at this point, now could she? Besides, she’s probably so indoctrinated it didn’t even cross her mind. Interesting though how sex hormones can override even the most rigourous of Christian upbringings. Where’s Jesus when you need him?
But let’s face it, this fetus is not ever going to suffer the poverty, deprivation, lack of a loving family or any of the other disasters that so often greet the birth of accidental or unwanted pregnancies. This is one lucky little fetus.
I find the cult of fetal-love kinda creepy. Too bad, too sad once they’re here.
Maybe I shouldn’t think Salisbury would have had a real life anyway – maybe she would have gone to Patrick Henry college then married some robot she met there and started cranking out the babies at age 22. Not that much difference.
I for one aplaud the Palin family,this happened in my family and its tough to know the best way forward,I give them the benefit of the doubt on this and would guess that like us they will all have to chip in with their time and money to raise this kid. Just because Ms Palin is Mcains veep and holds strong veiws on abortion does not mean she is inhumane or dogmatic when it comes to her own family.
Brian fetal love is creepy? when did it become liberal orthodoxy that you must cheer lead for abortions?
Richard, the issue is not so emotional as you make it out. It’s not about the elections & it’s not about chipping in & warmth & cosiness. It’s about person A deciding that person B should do X – because person A has strong opinion in the matter – Palin is entitled to have her opinion but, in a liberal orthodox view, it’s Bristol’s opinion matters & in case of quasi-forced marriage, it’s also Bristol’s sex friend’s opinion to matter.
The way this has been put out is to be politicizing it from the Palin-side. I believe she should have said – what if the girl is pregnant? But she said not only ‘sorry, the girl is pregnant’ (as if the girl had to be sorry, maybe she finds pre-marital fetal live lots less creepy than her mother) & she said ‘it will be born’ (as if it were her & her choice alone) & ‘she’ll marry the boy’ (as if she & the boy do not have a say in it).
So, yeah …. this is a valid political case now: the rule of law outweighs the rule of parents, certainly when parents are claiming God has a say here. &, no, it is not a case about abortion – but a case of individual rights (in this case of almost-adult people).
Ophelia, I guess they just crave to be in a Shakespearian drama. ‘Bristol has marched on Chelsea, but before a fight they enjoyed some afternoon tea.’
Is it something to do with Bristol Cities? Why don’t they think of the children when they give them silly names or force their religious beliefs on to them?
I see this case as primarily problematic for Palin’s views on sex education, not on abortion. She preaches abstinence and just won’t see that it doesn’t work. Her own daughter is evidence that it doesn’t, but instead of admitting that, she’s going to turn this into a “pro-life” ad.
—
OB, I think the Brits like to return the favor: Posh & Becks named one of their sons Brooklyn.
Don’t be so touchy, Richard. I never said I was speaking for Liberal Orthodoxy (whatever that means), radicals, Hobbits or anyone other than myself.
What’s creepy? Re-read my next sentence.
The fact is many anti-abortion folks couldn’t care less about the kids once they’re here. Doubt this? Look at their lack of public outcry and their voting records when it comes to public health and welfare issues and the political candidates they support.
The obsession with fetal life and survival to the point of throwing oneself in front of clinic doors, harassing women entering them, threatening clnic staff and their families and murdering doctors – well, yes, I find that kind of “love” more than a little creepy.
B.
Sorry, Ophelia, I hadn’t read your earlier comment providing context for “liberal orthodoxy” before responding to Richard’s irrelevant use of it in response to me.
B.
Note for Americans:
“Bristol” is UK slang for “breast” (Bristol = Bristol City = titty)
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
I didn’t know that. I know some rhyming slang, but I didn’t know that one. That is perfect.
Also didn’t know Posh and Becks had a kid Brooklyn. I’d just been wondering why people don’t name kids Bronx or Staten Island. Brooklyn v. cool. Akron, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh; all good names for offspring.
Americans would rather just make ’em up: Lemonjello, Orangello (accent on the second syllable, of course).
On the other hand, I’m quite sure there’s a Brooklyn, Cincinnati or Chatanooga out there somewhere.
“Just because Ms Palin is Mcains veep and holds strong veiws on abortion does not mean she is inhumane or dogmatic when it comes to her own family.”
Actually, Richard, you’re wrong yet again. She is inhumane and cruel in her behavior towards her own family–she threw them in the shark tank of the American media with zero preparation.
Oh yes, and she also subjected her newest child to a completely bizarre and life-threatening sequence of events that any medical doctor would be shocked by, just so that it could be born in Alaska. This woman is fucked up.
>OB, I think the Brits like to return the favor: Posh & Becks named one of their sons Brooklyn.< I see it turns out that the story that it was in Brooklyn that he was conceived is an urban myth. Posh tells us the riveting facts here: http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2007/03/the_origin_of_b.html
What a time-waster the internet can be sometimes. :-)
No no, it saves us time, it lets us find out why Posh and Becks named the kid ‘Brooklyn’ quickly!
Hee hee
Bristol Palin’s pregnancy isn’t evidence of the failure of abstinence-only education, Tea. We don’t know the circumstances of her pregnancy, or what protection she used or didn’t use. And no, we can’t assume she used nothing just because her mother is pro-abstinence-only.
The girl deserves better than to be a political object-lesson. We can argue against her mother’s policies without dragging her in, so she’s really irrelevant. I really feel for any 17-year-old whose sex life is being discussed by a whole nation. The only remotely relevant thing about this is that Sarah Palin would probably be horribly judgmental of anyone else’s 17-year-old kid who got pregnant out of wedlock, thanks to her conservative Christian beliefs.
Also, can you imagine if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old daughter who got pregnant? Conservatives would go nuts and we’d get all kinds of racist cracks about the girl and her family.
“Why don’t they think of the children when they give them silly names or force their religious beliefs on to them?’
Memphis Eve: Bono. Ireland: Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. London Emilio: Slash
Here you will find 50 crazy celebrity baby names
women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/ women/families/article2130988.ece
Oops, there is also Paris Hilton!
Jenavir, it certainly isn’t evidence of the success of abstinence-only education, is it?
It’s evidence of party-wide hypocrisy if you ask me. There are a lot of pietistic and or controlling politicians who think that they own women’s bodies particularly women’s reproductive organs and their contents. (Some of them say that Baby Jesus or God tells them they have to be in charge of women’s bodies). And that they get to decide about them rather than their rightful owners. Now, they are all tut-tutting at the rest of us for having the nerve to comment that Miss Bristol’s pregnancy is NOT in the family values agenda, since she should not have had sex before marriage. If she had been raised right and all.
Yesterday someone said, well, many someones said that The Case of Bristol is “private.” So. . . they are allowed to butt in, boss women and their uteruses around and withhold birth control at the pharmacy if it offends their religion, ban abortion, and generally set the rules (and one might note that the sperm-donor here has gotten much less scrutiny than Bristol).
But when it’s in their interest to parade around a 17 year old high school girl who is knocked up to show that their ridiculous VP choice has True Family Values Bonafides, they do not hesitate. McCain’s press office released the info. And if the rest of us start to wonder about all of it, our little mitties are slapped because it’s an invasion of privacy.
Sorry, this one does not fly with me. The Republicans are cynical, lying, women-hating monsters. Bristol needs to get REALLY out of control and get some kind of major league revenge on Mommy. And Grampy McCain.
But the abstinence-only education v. comprehensive sex education argument is not very compelling. As it turns out, in the US, adolescents have sex at about the same rate whether they have had abstinence education or comprehensive education. So poor Bristol can’t be exploited by either side on that issue.
I have a suspicion that the Palins do not know enough about any place outside Alaska to know that there is a city named Bristol in England. Sarah has heard of Iraq but, as she said a couple of years ago, hasn’t paid much attention to it. Their oldest child was named Track. . . reportedly in honor of, yes, a running track. And I read (but maybe not a good source) that the latest baby Trig was named after, well, that area of math. Who knows where Bristol came from. . .
G. Tingey, are you disputing with Brooklyn’s mother where he was conceived?
(See above.)
Do you know something we don’t know?
When my son lived in the U.K., he lived in Croydon. Would Croydon make a good name?
“But the abstinence-only education v. comprehensive sex education argument is not very compelling. As it turns out, in the US, adolescents have sex at about the same rate whether they have had abstinence education or comprehensive education. So poor Bristol can’t be exploited by either side on that issue.”
I’m not concerned with the *rate* at which kids have sex. Sex education is not supposed to prevent them from having sex – it’s supposed to teach them how to protect themselves from diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The assumption is, therefore, that Bristol probably wouldn’t be pregnant right now if she only had better sex-ed: not because it would teach her how to keep her legs together, but because she would learn about contraception.
So has anyone else watched Palin’s speech? She comes off as a bit actress who won a Daytime Emmy award. What are the Republicans thinking??
She threw her children in the the shark tank of the media? in what respect is she different than any other politician in that regard dzd I agree she was a crap choice for veep though.
Claire Ramsey said:
This misses the point in two ways (one of which Tea already pointed out). Firstly, the actual data shows very clearly that the differences between abstinence only sex education and comprehensive sex education are thus: Abstinence only sex education has the impact of increasing the average age at which teens engage in intercourse by zero to six months when compared to their peers in no sex education or comprehensive sex education; that is, it has either no delaying effect or a very slight delaying effect, depending on the study. But when students who have abstinence only sex education in schools DO have intercourse (at more or less the same time their peers do), they are very much less likely to use condoms or other contraception/disease protection than their peers who receive comprehensive sex education, and consequently they are more likely to suffer unwanted pregnancy or STDs.
Contrariwise, no study has ever shown that comprehensive sex education leads to teens having sex earlier or more frequently or with more partners: The only effect that has been demonstrated is that teens who receive comprehensive sex education show higher incidence of condom use and lower incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs.
I am adamantly opposed to exploiting Governor Palin’s 17-year-old daughter in and of herself: She has enough troubles, poor girl. But the fact that Sarah Palin is adamantly and wholly behind abstinence-only sex education and against comprehensive sex education in the face of both the scientific facts of the matter AND the direct, personal experience in her own family does speak to her qualifications as a candidate. Sarah Palin is not simply wrong, she is willfully blind and stupid about this subject.
She’s also willfully blind and stupid about evolution, and the environment, and foreign policy, and every other subject on which I’ve become aware of her political positions to date. And she’s a huge liar and hypocrite about fighting pork barrel politics and corruption on top of her other notably absent virtues. She is, in fact, a Christian Dominionist nutjob masquerading as a mere right wing conservative nutjob. I think – and I never thought I’d say this about any candidate for office in America – I think I have more respect for Mike Huckabee. To me, Huckabee seemed to be a sincere and somewhat honest and consistent right wing religious nutjob, which beats a repeatedly proven liar and hypocrite who is ALSO a right wing religious nutjob any day.
G, wow, you should check your rabies shots are up to date. I don’t hold with creation or abortion as moral litmus tests in the way fundamentalists use them, but this woman seems to be bringing out the opposite of fairmindedness in many.
Oh fo f**&* sake, ChrisPer! Why is it unfair to call Palin to account over her opinions and actions?
I actually cannot see anything in G’s post that justifies your reaction (rabies shots, reall?). But even if he was losing his temper (which he is not: sometimes you call people stupid or nutjobs because they are!) what’s wrong with that? You can be angry for fair reasons…
Address G’s criticisms if you can (hint: he provides links), but to criticize his writing style stinks of weakness.
Until I heard her speech, I thought I might give Palin the benefit of the doubt, as an individual anyway, if not as a representative of a deranged political tendency. I might, as they say, quite like her as a neighbour. Not now.
The only interesting question about her is whether a candidate chosen to do two completely incompatible things – appeal to the xx-chromosome voters allegedly still angry over Hillary, and to the radical Xian ‘base’, can manage to do either [and to be honest, the first is a foregone blow-out, methinks].
McCain’s voicemail to Palin leaked to the press:
http://www.236.com/blog/w/lee_camp/mccains_voice_mail_to_palin_le_8644.php
Thanks, Arnaud. But having bothered to argue with ChrisPer once or twice, I now just ignore him completely. And I wouldn’t bother with this particular response whomever wrote it – because someone who starts by criticizing your tone without addressing your content at all has already demonstrated their fundamental disinterest in reasoned argument, and already lost the debate in the eyes of any reader capable of critical thinking.
“this woman seems to be bringing out the opposite of fairmindedness in many.”
She stood up on a stage last night and gave a speech that was packed with lies and distortions, when it had any content at all. If that’s the way a person wants to officially introduce themselves to the world, then I have no respect for them. None. Bending over backwards to accomodate lies is not “fairmindedness”.
Oh, and Dave: If you thought her carefully aimed campaign speech was less than endearing, you should hear what she says to her home audience when she’s being much more open about her actual views. To wit, check out this video of her speaking to her long-time Assembly of God congregation, the prophetic end times charismatic Christian church she’s belonged to most of her life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k
For those who haven’t the time or the stomach to watch (I don’t blame you), here are the highlights: Tons of ultra-simplistic all Jesus all the time blithering, plus some stuff about the war in Iraq being an effort directly in the service of God on high. Scary stuff, especially when one considers John McCain’s age and health.
It kinda makes me wonder: Where are the believers who embrace that very sophisticated concept of “the immanent Divine” that bait-and-switching theologians like to go on about? Actually, that question’s not fair, because I know the answer: Some of them are in comparative religion departments at universities or even at non-fundamentalist seminaries, and the rest comprise a significant minority of the people in the pews at Unitarian Universalist congregations – and that pretty much covers it. *sigh*
Thanks for the encomium G; It is correct that I did not address content of your remarks. This is however more like a public space than a formal debating society so I am as free to address tone as content.
I note that fairmindedness is indeed absent here; has Obama never spoken in that Christian church he has attended all those years? Has he ever been heard to speak on matters of doctrinal fantasies like the power of prayer, speaking in tongues or the usual christian-faith-power stuff? Surely its impossible he hasn’t, but I don’t note any links to such being posted to his disparagement.
Have Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer ever had children? How many? How about abortions, have they had any of those? I think it would be wrong for political pundits to criticise their management of their reproductive lives, but it isn’t so when its a Republican speaking, apparently.
Have members of the Democratic party never tried to shut free speech up, as is asserted about Caribou Jane being in favour of banning a book? Never tried to for instance prevent misogynist or racist words being spoken?
As for the creationism, it seems that Palin has spoken AGAINST including such nonsense in science courses, as is only right and constitutional.
Faugh. The fury over this GOVERNOR OF A STATE being nominated as a VP candidate seems to be childish rage at anything that might stand in the way of the media’s and the Left’s darling. Identity politics, projection and partisanship seem to be antithetical to fairmindedness.
Cris I have jumped on G. before now for his treatment of right wing christians but this time I think he has been more than fair in his critque. Ms Palin is in a class of her own as far as R.W.C go she is also very foolish(as demonstated by the Jesus wants the Alaska pipeline video)so she does deserve a fair amount of stick.
Also G. didnt exploit Ms Palins family problems in his comment either,so I think your rabid remark was a bit unfair to him.
G: I apologise because I was wrong.
CP, keep perspective, this is not about her children, this is about her forcing her children to comply with her choices (inspired by her religion).
Job, this is not primarily about Palin’s children, but rather about all the future American children: we don’t want teens to have sex before they’ve had a chance to learn about contraception and disease-prevention. We don’t want more unwanted babies, and we also don’t want more abortions, if they can be prevented with a condom or a pill. Palin seems to want more unwanted kids, however paradoxical that might sound.
Tea, that’s a point of policy, & whilst I do agree with your point of view, I’m not saying Palin is not entitled to her different opinion. I’m merely saying it is nothing to cheer about if somebody’s forcing somebody else into something on account of the first somebody’s ideas – that is not a point of policy.
ChrisPer, yeah right! You are free to do whatever you want, mate. You can post the lyrics of the Hedgehog Song if you wish (maybe I should check with OB before saying that…), but if you want to be taken seriously maybe you should address the issue at hand? (Just an idea…)
Anyway, there is an election under way. Telling us that there should be no criticism (or calling any such criticism shrill and rabid as you do, which is the same thing) of the other candidate’s positions and – to a certain extend – life is frankly barmy and reveal a basic misunderstanding of the workings of democracy.
I just think you only come here to find argument for your Muslim-bashing and are shocked to find out that some of the posters are actual liberals!
And I am sorry but I also disagree that the issue is not Palin’s children.
1- because in a lot of ways she has made them the issue. They are an integral part of the Palin “brand”, that whole poster ‘mum of five who loves shooting and Jesus’ image.
2- I am not saying that they are fair game but the whole Bristol affair is at least a illustration of how flawed are the policies that she advocates. I also agree, mind you, that it would be political suicide for Obama to go there…
ChrisPer, you seem to have commenters here confused with someone else. I don’t think there’s anyone here who is an uncritical drooler over the Democratic Party – to put it mildly. You talk as if you’d strayed out of the studio audience for a Bill O’Reilly show or something. Get over it.
ChrisPer: Your game of “but the other guy’s just as bad” and “it’s all just politics and they’re all liars” is both tiresome and riddled with falsehoods. For example, I guarantee you that Barack Obama, while deeply religious, has never uttered a word resembling the kind of “anything I feel really strongly about is God-inspired prophetic speech” nonsense that Palin embraces. I specifically said “ultra-simplistic” when I described Palin’s religious ideology – because it is. Sarah Palin’s God is clear and unambiguous in every way: He wants whatever it is she wants and hates whatever she hates, down to specific policies like putting His Divine support behind a tax-revenue-generating oil pipelines in her state and demanding complete legal dominion over every womb in the country.
In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently presented a thoughtful, nuanced conception of the role of faith in public and private life, and has emphasized the importance of secular government and the separation of church and state. I still don’t agree with everything he says about those subjects, and think his intention to preserve a much-reformed version of Bush’s faith-based initiatives is wrong-headed – but he has presented thoughtful, reasonable arguments for his positions and has demonstrated an attitude of reverence and responsibility with respect to the Constitution. Palin doesn’t even compare: She has consistently and repeatedly shown herself to be a dangerous political and religious extremist whose policy preferences and Supreme Court appointments (if the worst should happen) would be absolutely disastrous for this nation. She’s even been a proud supporter and repeat conference speaker for an Alaskan separatist organization that decries the John Birch Society as insufficiently conservative and openly espouses a Christian Dominionist agenda.
And while I’m pointing out your distortions, Palin promised – in libertarian-leaning Alaska – not to push her own preferred pro-creationism, anti-evolution education policies as a matter of political compromise. In an interview, Palin clearly stated that she advocates a “teach the controversy” position straight from the DI play book. It was only *after* she received a great deal of criticism for her pro-creationism statements that she “clarified” and said she would not push the Alaska Board of Education to add “alternatives to evolution” to the curriculum, and further said she wouldn’t use evolution/creation views as a litmus test for school board appointments. Knowing which way the political wind is blowing while running a gubernatorial campaign is hardly the same thing as demonstrating respect for either science or the Constitution. In fact, Palin’s words and actions on many occasions demonstrate her profound indifference to reason, science, and the rule of any law but God’s Law.
And has anyone noticed who is actually making a political issue of Bristol Palin? In response to the news earlier this week, Barack Obama and several other prominent Democrats came right out and said, very very clearly, the kid’s alright – she’s off limits. In fact, here’s Barack Obama on the subject, direct quote:
The mainstream media usual suspects, especially Faux News, keep going on about how it’s so wrong to attack Sarah Palin through her children and so on, but I have yet to actually read or see or hear anyone doing so. I repeat: No one actually IS attacking Bristol Palin or using her as a proxy to attack Governor Palin. The Republicans and their ever-faithful lapdogs in media are getting an enormous amount of political mileage out of defending the poor girl from attacks no one is making, as crass and cynical a display of political exploitation of a candidate’s family as I have ever seen.
A few people have pointed out, as OB did in this post and I did above in the comments, that teen pregnancies and unwanted children are a natural and inevitable consequence of the fetus-fetishizing, abstinence-only sex education policies that Sarah Palin advocates. But that’s a legitimate policy criticism, and I defy anyone to make a convincing argument that it’s somehow out-of-bounds or unjust or wrong or cruel to point out the rather obvious fact that Palin’s own family provides an example of her bad policy’s bad consequences.
And while I’m pointing out rhetorical tricks, The Daily Show brilliantly pointed out that the Republicans’ constant harping on the view that Bristol’s pregnancy is a personal/private/family matter and that Bristol Palin is making the right CHOICE by having her baby and marrying the father is wildly at odds with their biggest base-rallying platform plank, which insists that no woman can ever have any privacy or choice about pregnancy. Samantha Bee lets the Republicans speak for themselves on the matter.
Here is John Stewart piss taking the Palin V.P.choice. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
Actually, I think all her children are named after towns in Alaska. There are plenty of Bristols in the US.
OB:”ChrisPer, you seem to have commenters here confused with someone else.”
Yes, I came over after reading a lot of other people’s stuff, and went of wrongly and half-cocked at G.
Nevertheless, its the usual thing that sets me off. I come here because OB and B&W have certain great qualities and objectives that I want to learn from, but I get all mouthy when I see what I take to be unnecessary prejudice against people, when I am in the habit of separating these people from their ideas.
Reading through the whole comments thread, I am… charmed.