And I'm an asshole...

Thank god you're an asshole, or this forum would be constipated.

It's a value based on instinct, not reasoning. It's repulsive the way torture is repulsive to most people, a gut feeling. I've learned not to judge people for premarital sex (since most people hump a lot) but getting pregnant takes it too far. I would not be comfortable with a personal friend doing so, though thankfully that has not occurred.

Yoink!

Though in my defense, I do try to put a few tasty morsels with the raw sewage.

Obama gave a perect answer.

Indeed. Incredibly classy response.

Peace,
Mike

Good think she supports abstinence-only edumacation!

I agree, the math adds up. Half shit and half cheesecake, and you have a chocolate cheesecake half as delicious.

Federally mandated abstinence is a complete joke. America can't legislate abstinence any more than communists can the Soviets legislate hard work.

I don't know, comparing getting pregnant out of wedlock to torture is a bit stretch. I mean, I understand it's your personal position, but I hope it's not how you really feel.

Does this apply to ALL out of wedlock pregnancies, even the wanted ones?

Rate of babies born with DS goes from 1% for under 35 year olds to 4% for over 35. But 80% of DS babies are born to under 35 year olds. http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/ ... 1987/811/2

Yes, but does this mean that there will be fewer puppies dead, with or without Down Syndrome?

Unfortunately, the concept of wanting babies out of wedlock is alien to me.

Now there's a sly way to make this an issue related directly to Sarah Palin. "DId you teach your daughter about birth control, or is her pregnancy a product of your policies to withhold such information from teenagers throughout high school?"

Surely you think pregnancy out of wedlock isnt worse than abortion? Because I definitely think abortion is far far worse.

Anyway - I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion and it will blow over - as long as there arent any further secrets. I think the Reps should have done their homework better though.

Apparently the daddy's Myspace page says "I don't want kids."

I think a little of the sex education and contraception that Sarah Palin opposes might have come in a little handy here.

So do I get it right?

The youngest child is from Mother Palin
but....
daughter Palin is 17 and pregnant?

It's not surprising that Obama would react the way he did, it's a shrewd political move to stay away from any backlash. But I also like to think it's partly due to his own character and experiences. Obama himself being born to a teenage mother gives him a lot more insight into how much people will judge a situation knowing so few of the facts, and I hope that experience, not political savvy, lead to his statements on Palin.

Either way, he's right and it's time to move on to the next issue.

Karl, it's the hypocricy that is being attacked here, really.

Rerpublicans preach about abstinance and they preach about how evil gays are and they preach about the sanctity of marriage, and then we read about pregnant teenagers, gay sex scandals and cheating spouses.

Now admittedly, those things happen with Democrats too -- but at least the dems aren't hypocrites about it, telling everyone else what to do while doing it all themselves.

First off, any Republican preaching about how evil gays are deserves whatever they get. It's one thing to deny equal rights based on sexual preference, it's a whole nother thing to start demonizing someone based on that choice. Both are wrong, but the latter is just a disgrace of such magnitude that it has no place in politcs or this world.

I also think it's important not to sterotype one person for the actions of their predecessors. Palin has, to my knowledge, never come close to preaching about how evil gays are, making your statement unfair.

Now, let's talk about abstinance and hypocricsy. Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of pretending to oppose a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time. By that definition, Palin would have to pretend to be against abstinence while in actuality she is encouraging the opposite, or acting contrary to her stated belief.

Anyone who has raised children, or has grown up with brothers and sisters knows the truth of the statement that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Palin believes in abstinance, and Palin was not the one getting her jollies on before marriage. Palin could have been the best mother possible, taught her daughter the values she believed in, but in the end her child made her own decision. Alternatively, it could be a complete lack of parenting. The point is, neither of us really know her or the situation well enough to comment, and to call it hypocritcal doesn't ring true with me. This situation has nothing to do with hypocrisy, it has to do with frustrated Democrats smelling blood in the water, and rationalizing their attacks with any reasoning they can find.

Don't get me wrong, there is always a possibility that this situation really does reflect on Palin's parenting ability. It's certainly possible that she's an awful and neglecting mother who drove her child into casual rebellious sex, but we certainly don't have anything to back that up, and I find the other situation to be far more likely.

I don't consider a fetus living unless there is intent of birth, though I oppose non-emergency abortion due to the shenanigans that occur to require such an act in the first place. Sometimes I feel the whole "sanctity of life" argument is a spinoff of a desire to curtail sex, a side argument that took a life of its own. (pun not intended)

The pregnancy will be out of the news by next weekend. Today's news cycles are fast and mostly forgiving.

Edit: The whole point of abstinence-only education, coupled with a hypothetical blanket ban on abortions, is to prevent people from having sex. I wonder how many people here knew that. It's a circuitous attempt to force traditional attitudes toward sexual relationships in an age when sexual relationships are no longer taboo -- a Victorian relic that most conservative standard-bearers no longer recognize as Victorian.

My comment about hypocricy was aimed more at the entire party than just her, although her "abstinance only" ideas obviously are worth notice -- how can she get other kids to be abstinant if she can't even get her own daughter to?

I never understood abstinence only education. I don't believe in premarital sex, however, people do it and they need to have an understanding about birth control. It shouldn't be simply the schools problem though, parents also need to take responsibility for it.

I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again here: I'm really not sure where I stand on abortion.

I used to feel that it should be a woman's choice, but taking a class on child development, including fetal development really served to open my eyes to the fact that a baby in the womb is a living, breathing, active being capable of learning and adapting.

I still think abortion has it's place, and I think there are circumstances and timeframes where it should be acceptable, but I have started to slide toward the idea that guidelines and limitations of some kind are needed.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you there.

The issue is where to draw those limitations. Roe v. Wade did the best it could, but there are some people who believe that a cell is a baby, and you're never going to convince them.

This is beyond hilarilous and ridiculous. To think that the Palins (aka Republicans, McCain, etc) believe that to force this girl to have a baby and marry at 17 is the right thing to do. It's sad.

And Palin is a hypocrite because if this were the daughter of Obama, she would be all over them condemning him as a parent and as presidential material.

With this news, the new pictures of the daughter driking it up, Troopergate, and lack of experience, I have to ask.... how long before she steps down as the VP pick?

There's a contract over at Intrade, for Palin pulling an Eagleton.