Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Danny McGee's column >>

DANNY MCGEE

Home Page
Articles Posted: 34  Links Seeded: 13
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 2/22/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Bristol Palin is None of Your Business

Tue Sep 2, 2008 12:54 AM EDT
election, politics, john-mccain, republican, sarah-palin, lvs2, bristol-palin, lvs2-01
By Danny McGee
Advertise | AdChoices

In response to previous Internet rumors that Bristol Palin, Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's daughter, was actually the mother of Trig Palin, Sarah Palin's youngest son, Gov. Palin has announced to the media today that her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is currently five months pregnant, making impossible the charges that she is actually Trig's mother. My question is this: Why does it matter?

This is certain to be one of the high-profile, juicy political scandal stories of the week, and possibly the entire remainder of the presidential campaign, sure to be used by certain unsavory members of the Left to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Gov. Palin's "traditional values"-based campaign. But what relevance does this actually have to the presidential campaign?

Let's be clear on a couple of things. First of all, Bristol Palin is not a politician. She is not currently running for office, on the national level or otherwise. Secondly, Bristol is a mere seventeen years old. She is a minor by nearly every legal definition in all fifty states. She is a high school student, probably with lots of friends and even a Myspace page. I can only imagine how emotionally damaging it must be for her to be thrust into the forefront of this campaign, and thus the national spotlight, with a news story so intensely personal and so utterly not the business of the voters of the United States.

What's perhaps even worse is that Gov. Palin has been quick to tell the press that her daughter will marry the father of her unborn child. Before today's announcement, did Bristol actually have any such intentions? What if her relationship with this young man is not the best? What if it's great now, but things go south later on down the road, as is so painfully commonplace to relationships in her age group? What if her pregnancy was the result of a simple one-night stand gone wrong? None of the answers to any of these questions are any of America's business. They should be solely the concern of Bristol and her family. But now, in the wake of Internet rumors turned into a buzzing political scandal, her mother has, for all intents and purposes, prematurely committed her to a marriage from a national soap box.

It's often been observed that humans have a peculiar tendency to care about the personal lives of people whose personal lives bear little or no practical relevance to their own. From celebrity gossip to the adulterous affairs and sexual orientation of political officials, we ooh and ahh and gawk and celebrate and grieve and scrunch up our noses in indignation at the matters of others which have no actual effect on our own lives, often at the expense of those issues which do. Today, that odd fascination has crossed a major line. Bristol Palin, daughter or not of a vice presidential candidate, is a teenage girl who deserves to live her private life in privacy, without having her dirty laundry aired by every major national news network in the country for the world to judge and scrutinize. Bristol Palin's pregnancy is none of your business, America. I am ashamed of the outlets on "my" side of the political fence who have attempted to exploit her for political gain, and I am disgusted in the McCain campaign for entertaining these vile tactics with a response.

Addendum: In the spirit of this article, the conversation here should remain confined to the relevance of said events, and should not be extended to discussing the events themselves. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to allow my column to be a forum for continuing the propagation of this issue as a political tool, so anyone who wants to actually discuss Sarah and Bristol's personal lives should go elsewhere. Any comments to that effect on this article will be deleted.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Danny McGee's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Civility, Respect, and Honor, Edit Me, Left of Center, Newsvine Election Coverage
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (77)
Danny McGee

What do you think? Is Bristol's pregnancy relevant to the American public?

Also, writing critiques are welcome!

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 12:56 AM EDT
raven29520

According to a spokesman for McCain's campaign, she was warned that Bristol could get pulled into the spotlight. It was Sara Palin who was irresponsible and put her 17 year old daughter into the political spotlight. The American people have a right to know what kind of person Sara Palin is. So far, it appears that morally she has bad judgement. If Trig is indeed her son, she endangered his life by not seeking immediate medical help while at the convention in Texas. She endangered his life when she flew on an airplane from Texas to Alaska. She previously knew the child had Down's Syndrome. She knew she had a high risk pregnancy and she still risked his life numerous times. How can a woman with judgement like this be VP of the USA!

  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:13 AM EDT
Danny McGee

According to a spokesman for McCain's campaign, she was warned that Bristol could get pulled into the spotlight. It was Sara Palin who was irresponsible and put her 17 year old daughter into the political spotlight. The American people have a right to know what kind of person Sara Palin is. So far, it appears that morally she has bad judgement. If Trig is indeed her son, she endangered his life by not seeking immediate medical help while at the convention in Texas. She endangered his life when she flew on an airplane from Texas to Alaska. She previously knew the child had Down's Syndrome. She knew she had a high risk pregnancy and she still risked his life numerous times. How can a woman with judgement like this be VP of the USA!

How Palin handled her own pregnancy is borderline. It's still personal and there are still much more relevant things to focus on, but it's on the edge of what I'd consider acceptable. But her daughter, as Obama also mentioned today, is absolutely off-limits in my mind. It's not relevant, it's invasive, and it's potentially personally damaging to a very young individual who is already being forced to grow up very quickly and deal with stresses most people her age don't need to face.

  • 4 votes
#2.1 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:23 AM EDT
raven29520

So why did Sara Palin, irresponsibly knowing that this would happen take on this role at this time? You can't blame the citizens of the USA for wanting to know who this lady and her family are. Sara Palin chose a career over her family. She chose a career over her pregnancy when she flew out to Texas and back to Alaska while pregnant with Trig! When a womans water breaks she is at risk for infection! Sara Palin is the irresponsible party here as noted, not the American people! I agree, it is unfortunate that this 17 year old has been subjected to the media, but it was Sara Palin who put her there, not the American people!

  • 4 votes
#2.2 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 3:18 AM EDT
Danny McGee

I'm not saying Palin isn't partially at fault for putting her daughter in this position by accepting the VP offer, but you can't put the blame entirely on her shoulders, especially when the original "stories" which started this were not only utterly irrelevant but also unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory-esque rumors which not only would have served to damage Bristol's reputation, but which were wrong, and vomited all over the internet before even being subjected to thorough research. Yes, Sarah does bear some blame for putting her daughter in the spotlight knowing she would be vulnerable to this sort of scrutiny, but yes, I can blame the DailyKos and others who had the audacity to nose around in the personal business of a 17-year-old girl just because she's the daughter of a politician. To say the fault is entirely that of Palin's is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a revealing outfit.

  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 10:10 AM EDT
raven29520

This is assuming Sara Palin is not lying NOW. I am not convinced and I think alot of others are not either. Dates have been added to photos which have been previously circulating, and were presented before as being at the time of the Texas Convention. These same photos are being circulated as current, since nomination for the VP postion. Also, why did she miss so much school during that time that these photos were previously indicated to have been taken. Does everyone think American's are stupid. Even the youngest daughter has aged since these photos. Come on..........

  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:08 PM EDT
finalcut

1. who cares who the mother of Trig is?
2. why should we care?

That's the point. It isn't any of our business. If Gov Palin had a baby (or her daughter did) it doesn't matter. The family has embraced the baby and is taking care of it. If Bristol is now pregnant then they will have another Baby around to take care of. Once more it really isn't any of our business.

  • 4 votes
#2.5 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:15 PM EDT
Danny McGee

This is assuming Sara Palin is not lying NOW. I am not convinced and I think alot of others are not either. Dates have been added to photos which have been previously circulating, and were presented before as being at the time of the Texas Convention. These same photos are being circulated as current, since nomination for the VP postion. Also, why did she miss so much school during that time that these photos were previously indicated to have been taken. Does everyone think American's are stupid. Even the youngest daughter has aged since these photos. Come on..........

The point is that it doesn't matter. This is her family life for Christ's sake, not her political career. Leave it alone. It has no relevance at all to her potential performance as a VP, and there are plenty of other things to complain about involving Palin that don't involve putting the emotional well-being of an innocent 17-year-old girl in jeopardy. There are other issues to tackle. This one is not worth it.

By the way: In the spirit of this article, the conversation here should remain confined to the relevance of said events, and should not be extended to discussing the events themselves. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to allow my column to be a tool for continuing the propagation of this issue as a political tool, so anyone who wants to actually discussion Sarah and Bristol's personal lives should go elsewhere. Any further comments to that effect on this article will be deleted.

  • 2 votes
#2.6 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:26 PM EDT
oldcrankyman

Given the fact that Ms Palin has chosen to portray herself as as a good Christian, anti abortion, no sex ed person, I'd have to say that the fact that her 17 yr old unmarried daughter is pregnant is relevant. When people campaign on a family values platform, then their family matters.

  • 1 vote
#2.7 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 11:50 PM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

Got to disagree with you OCM. (Surprised?) I've got three kids. My oldest is a Marine, but in high school I wasn't sure he wouldn't be dropping fries as a career choice.

My middle one just gave birth to our first grandchild. She's 20, holding down 2 jobs.

My youngest just moved out. She's a card carrying granola crunching tofu farting tree-hugger flower child of the 60's at 18 years old.

3 kids, 3 different choices, all raised under the same family values. We teach, nurture, provide for, give guidance, and correct. But children become teenagers, and ultimately adults. And they make choices, some good, some bad. When they make good choices, we congratulate them. Why then, when they make bad choices do we automatically assume the parents are bad? Does being a good parent mean that our children must always make the right choice, and never make a mistake?

  • 6 votes
#2.8 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 12:15 AM EDT
Danny McGee

Given the fact that Ms Palin has chosen to portray herself as as a good Christian, anti abortion, no sex ed person, I'd have to say that the fact that her 17 yr old unmarried daughter is pregnant is relevant. When people campaign on a family values platform, then their family matters.

The only point even remotely relevant to this case is sex education, and even in that instance, this event has no real impact on the validity of her position. A sample size of one person might make great headlines, but it's of no statistical significance whatsoever and therefore is useless as evidence of anything. An actual statistical study - and I would imagine they exist, but I'm too tired to check on that at the moment - would do a much better job at that. The only reason to publicize this issue over a well-researched, organized, controlled study, is the fact that it's "juicy" and "hot" and entertaining. It's disgusting. I don't care how lofty the political goals are, you cannot justify accomplishing those goals at the expense of a 17-year-old girl. The ends don't justify the means.

  • 3 votes
#2.9 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:40 AM EDT
Anibunny

Given the fact that Ms Palin has chosen to portray herself as as a good Christian, anti abortion, no sex ed person, I'd have to say that the fact that her 17 yr old unmarried daughter is pregnant is relevant. When people campaign on a family values platform, then their family matters.

A teenage daughter didn't listen to her mother. What is this world coming to?

  • 2 votes
#2.10 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 11:42 AM EDT
oldcrankyman

AWM, I'd have been surprised it you didn't disagree on this one, I'd pretty much have to agree with what you said. But you weren't chosen to run for VP on the God ticket.

  • 1 vote
#2.11 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 10:00 PM EDT
oldcrankyman

I'd also have to add that if they didn't want their children to be noticed, they probably shouldn't have trotted them out for the photo op when her nomination was announced.

Since her husband was a member of a party that supported seccesion from the union, I'd probably vote for him.

  • 1 vote
#2.12 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 10:14 PM EDT
Reply
Danny McGee

Heh, and apparently Obama agrees with me. I hadn't heard about it when I started writing this, but I'm glad he's stepped up to discourage these kinds of tactics.

  • 4 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 1:33 AM EDT
finalcut

It fits in with his earlier claims that his wife and family are off-limits. If you want to attack the candidate fine but attacking the family members of the candidate is lame.

Having said that I am going to be a bit of a hypocrite - I'm not sure I understand the names of Palin's children. They are so peculiar. Track and Trig? Bristol? Seriously? I feel like i just read the family tree of a teenage mother who happens to love NASCAR. :O) I actually like her creativity but the names themselves just seem odd. There, that's all I'm going to say about her family.

  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 12:47 PM EDT
A patriotic American

Heh, and apparently Obama agrees with me.

And we've NEVER heard of a politician publicly discourage personal attacks while privately cheering them. No, that doesn't happen.

  • 2 votes
#3.2 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:30 AM EDT
Danny McGee

And we've NEVER heard of a politician publicly discourage personal attacks while privately cheering them. No, that doesn't happen.

Is there any evidence at all to indicate that's what's happening in this case?

  • 3 votes
#3.3 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:50 AM EDT
Brian Ford

In answer to 3.3

No, there's not.

  • 3 votes
#3.4 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 11:13 AM EDT
A patriotic American

In answer to 3.3

Is there ever?

  • 2 votes
#3.5 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
Danny McGee

Is there ever?

So is there any actual reason, beyond cynicism, to assume this actually happens often or at all?

  • 2 votes
#3.6 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 1:35 PM EDT
A patriotic American

pure, unadulerated cynicism.

Is there any any actual reason, beyond optimism, to assume this rarely happens or not at all?

Please don't answer. My cynical comment here detracts from the actual discussion. Doesn't mean I think I'm wrong... I just don't see further comments contributing much to the issues you raised and want to discuss.

  • 2 votes
#3.7 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:38 PM EDT
Danny McGee

Is there any any actual reason, beyond optimism, to assume this rarely happens or not at all?

Since you can't easily prove a negative, the burden of evidence is on the party making the affirmative claim. Checkmate. ;)

Please don't answer. My cynical comment here detracts from the actual discussion. Doesn't mean I think I'm wrong... I just don't see further comments contributing much to the issues you raised and want to discuss.

*shrug* It's fun, and I have no problems with cheaply inflating my comment count as long as it's not destructive or inappropriate.

  • 2 votes
#3.8 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:47 PM EDT
oldcrankyman

shrug* It's fun, and I have no problems with cheaply inflating my comment count as long as it's not destructive or inappropriate.

Sounds like you understand the current administration completely. Principles be damned, it's all about scoring points. I'd suggest that our country is past the point where we can treat elections as if they're NASCAR or the NFL.

    #3.9 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:33 PM EDT
    Reply
    Ellen-for-Obama

    Her mother made it an issue. And I agree that nobody should slam the poor girl, but Palin's backward thinking on issues of sex education, choice and birth control ARE relevant here.

    And if the father is 18, as the buzz has it, that's statutory rape. She is not upholding the law?

    • 5 votes
    Reply#4 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 3:01 AM EDT
    Danny McGee

    Ellen, this is actually not the case. Statutory rape laws in most states put the age of consent at 16, especially if the potential offender is under a certain age. This includes Alaska. The actual statute in question on the Alaska legislature reads as follows:

    (a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree if

    ...

    (3) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 16 years of age

    • 4 votes
    #4.1 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 10:17 AM EDT
    oldcrankyman

    Danny, that might be the case in some rural type states, where marrying your cousin is acceptable, but in most states the age of consent is 18. I don't see any way to put a good face on this. Personally I don't give a crap, but given that Ms. Palin is playing christian goddess for the extreme right wing, I think it's damned funny.

      #4.2 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 11:55 PM EDT
      jamiewb

      Wait, OCM...

      Danny cites the actual statute from the relevant state as a direct response to Ellen mistakenly calling the Bristol situation statuatory rape and you dismiss it as trying to "put a good face on this."?

      God forbid we Get Smarter Here.

      • 1 vote
      #4.3 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:22 AM EDT
      Danny McGee

      Danny, that might be the case in some rural type states, where marrying your cousin is acceptable, but in most states the age of consent is 18.

      You probably should have done your research before posting so confidently. The age of consent is 16 in 34 states, 17 in 8 states, and 18 in 8 states. That's less than 20%. Not exactly "most." And I'm not "putting a good face on this," because I have no intentions of putting any sort of "face" on this. I'd prefer if it wasn't a news story at all because it's none of our damned business. My only purpose was to correct an error.

      • 3 votes
      #4.4 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:48 AM EDT
      oldcrankyman

      I understand that you prefer it wasn't a news story at all, but it is our business since Ms. Palin was put on the ticket to placate the religous nuts, and this is pretty clearly not what the good Christians preach. I'd also suggest that if she didn't want her family to be part of the dogfight that is modern American politics, she probably shouldn't have trotted them out on stage for the whole world to see.

        #4.5 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:38 PM EDT
        Reply
        raven29520

        This is the scenario I see:
        1. Shotgun wedding -
        2. Neither have jobs (therefore becoming eligible for WIC, Planned Parenthood and Medicaid

        • 2 votes
        #5 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 3:22 AM EDT
        AngryWhiteMan63

        With Mom as Gov or VP? No, I think she and he will be well cared for. Let's not forget, they now get a Secret Service Detail.

        • 2 votes
        #5.1 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 6:35 PM EDT
        raven29520

        I guess that it is good...since after all he didn't want kids according to his website. I guess with this setup, he doesn't have to take care for them, so it will be all the same.

        • 1 vote
        #5.2 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 11:04 PM EDT
        Chum

        John McCain is wealthy by anyone's measure (even his own), but he receives disability money from the military, as well as Social Security.

        As for the topic at hand, I believe that Palin's stance on sex ed is indeed a critical issue. She clearly sees that abstinence only education doesn't work, but she still supports it. Why? Insanity is repeating the same actions expecting a different outcome. Her own grandchild is not the only evidence, of course. Many studies have proven this. And yet that stance remains.

        My point is that if you support abstinence only education, then you'd better be prepared to back that up with social services for the inevitable children that will follow.

        • 2 votes
        #5.3 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 1:22 PM EDT
        Anibunny

        While I don't support abstinence-only education in our schools. . .I guess they could argue that their program isn't being done right? Or aren't done enough? Basically, the way it is being taught and when it is being taught.

        I've heard the argument that speaking about contraceptives or mentioning them in schools, is letting teens know that it is okay to have sex before marriage. ( Again, I don't agree, but this is the argument I have heard in the past. )

        Now, this may be a bad question of me, but is Wasilla High School an 'abstinence-only' sex ed school? The mother may be pulling for this, but is the high school her daughter going to might not follow it. I know that parents can request their children to be pulled from these health classes, but one for abstinence-only education could argue that the daughter could still be exposed to it.

        Someone for abstinence-only education could make the argument that Bristol is an example as to why we need abstinence-only education.

          #5.4 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 1:44 PM EDT
          jamiewb

          Do you think that the reason that Bristol came down with a case of the pregs is that she didn't know about safe sex?

          • 1 vote
          #5.5 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:19 PM EDT
          Brian Ford

          I've heard the argument that speaking about contraceptives or mentioning them in schools, is letting teens know that it is okay to have sex before marriage.

          That's a peripheral issue, and a distraction.

          Whether it's "okay" or "not okay" for teens to have sex before marriage ... they are GOING to have sex before marriage. Kinky sex, gay sex, straight sex, boring sex, bad sex -- and without contraceptives -- unsafe sex and sex which produces unwanted babies.

          Now, just *having* knowledge of an easy access to condoms and the pill won't guarantee that kids will use them but there's no way that you can argue that they'll be *worse* off than if they didn't have that access.

          Abstinence only education ignores human nature, and it's dangerous and myopic.

          • 3 votes
          #5.6 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:26 PM EDT
          Danny McGee

          The spirit of this particular thread seems like it's still an effort to determine the relevance of the event, but it's getting kind of borderline. If we're going to start discussing sex-ed policy and its effectiveness I'd prefer we start citing actual studies and discontinue using Bristol as an example.

          • 1 vote
          #5.7 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:27 PM EDT
          Danny McGee

          Whether it's "okay" or "not okay" for teens to have sex before marriage ... they are GOING to have sex before marriage.

          I might even say that this is less of an issue, and a bigger issue is that the government really has no right to tell our nation's children when it is or isn't "okay" to have sex. That's bordering on (and possibly crossing the line of) religious proselytizing. It's the job of the parents to teach ethics, not the government.

          • 1 vote
          #5.8 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:32 PM EDT
          Brian Ford

          It's the job of the parents to teach ethics, not the government.

          When it comes to sex, I'm simply not sure it's a job that a parent can teach. They can simply do the best they can. And then, the kid will make *hopefully* make the smartest decision.

          That's why I think saying DONT DO IT NO MATTER WHAT is problematic. They're not armed with any information to allow them to make the smart choice, and chances are they're going to make the sex choice whether they're armed to make the smart choice or not.

          With that said, as I've said elsewhere, arm kids with a healthy interest in science fiction and fantasy and the "having sex" issue pretty much takes care of itself.

          • 3 votes
          #5.9 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:45 PM EDT
          jamiewb

          If we're going to start discussing sex-ed policy and its effectiveness I'd prefer we start citing actual studies and discontinue using Bristol as an example.

          Without doing any actual research, I'd like to propose a theory:

          IIRC, most studies show that there are less teen pregnancies in places that use safe-sex education as opposed to abstainence-only. I would suggest that the dicrepency does not occur because teens don't know about birth control and condoms in abstainence-only schools. I think that it occurs because abstainece-only schools tend to be in places that look down upon girls who are on the pill. Therefore, 16 year old girls are afraid to get on the pill (because they don't want to talk about it with their parents, and don't want their friends to think that they're a slut) but wind up having sex anyway.

            #5.10 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:47 PM EDT
            Danny McGee

            When it comes to sex, I'm simply not sure it's a job that a parent can teach. They can simply do the best they can. And then, the kid will make *hopefully* make the smartest decision.

            Yeah, I'm not saying it would be effective, I'm just saying that if anyone is going to say "DON'T DO IT NO MATTER WHAT" it should be the parents and not the government. Meanwhile, the schools should be there to provide education on what sex is, how it works, what its evolutionary purpose is, and what measures exist to prevent possibly unwanted consequences like pregnancy and the herp.

            Bottom line: Education comes from the schools, values and morality comes from the parents.

            With that said, as I've said elsewhere, arm kids with a healthy interest in science fiction and fantasy and the "having sex" issue pretty much takes care of itself.

            D&D: The ultimate tool in the fight against teen (and adult) pregnancy.

            Interestingly enough, the Bible and a strong Christian background is what did it for me. I didn't have sex until I was 19, and only after I'd abandoned my faith.

              #5.11 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:56 PM EDT
              Anibunny

              That's a peripheral issue, and a distraction.

              I was only trying to offer up the argument I have faced in the past to bring up discussion. That is all.

              Now, just *having* knowledge of an easy access to condoms and the pill won't guarantee that kids will use them but there's no way that you can argue that they'll be *worse* off than if they didn't have that access.

              Abstinence only education ignores human nature, and it's dangerous and myopic.

              Agreed.

              Do you think that the reason that Bristol came down with a case of the pregs is that she didn't know about safe sex?

              No I do not.

              But I also don't think that her choices/mistakes/opinions make her mother a hypocrite.

                #5.12 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:58 PM EDT
                Danny McGee

                I think that it occurs because abstainece-only schools tend to be in places that look down upon girls who are on the pill. Therefore, 16 year old girls are afraid to get on the pill (because they don't want to talk about it with their parents, and don't want their friends to think that they're a slut) but wind up having sex anyway.

                Very interesting speculation. Personally, I wouldn't push the pill as a great idea for teenagers in the first place. From my experience, being on another form of birth control leads to a lot of the "Oh, well then we don't need to use a condom" mentality, which, I would think, could raise the likelihood of catching STDs.

                • 1 vote
                #5.13 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:01 PM EDT
                jamiewb

                Very interesting speculation. Personally, I wouldn't push the pill as a great idea for teenagers in the first place. From my experience, being on another form of birth control leads to a lot of the "Oh, well then we don't need to use a condom" mentality, which, I would think, could raise the likelihood of catching STDs.

                I absolutely would push the pill as a good idea for teenagers. The only reason I would have some reservations is that messing with a girls' hormone levels can cause some other mental/phsical issues, and I'm not sure how that would play out for younger girls. I agree that kids should be using condoms for preventing STDs, but realistically, the pill is a good way for women to take control of their body and show that they are ready for the responsibility of being sexually active.

                  #5.14 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:46 PM EDT
                  AngryWhiteMan63

                  Okay, your missing half the argument. The education program has a two-fold mission, reduce teen pregnancies, and reduce teen occurrences of STD, and specifically HIV/AIDS.

                  Now, Abstinence-Only is 100% effective on both issues. You can't deny it.

                  All other methods, Male or Female condom, Spermicides, IUD, Sponge, etc, are anywhere between 74% to 99% effective in preventing pregnancy. Even the pill is only 95 to 99% effective.

                  But, only the condom reduces the risk of HIV. Reduces. Even the CDC does not have a figure for the effectiveness of condoms.

                  The current Title V legislation was designed to provide federal funds for schools to teach Abstinence Only programs to reduce the incidents of Teen STDs. Pregnancy was the secondary issue. Every state except California accepted this program and funding for the 5 year trial period. That period is over, and the few states that provided feedback showed less than stellar performance for Abstinence only programs. It should be noted that the education program does not just say "Don't have sex". They cover all forms of birth control and STD prevention, with an EMPHASIS on abstinence. What they can't do, with the federal funds, is provide condoms in school.

                  This does not mean a state or county can't provide condoms. Only that they can't use the federal funds for it.

                  Georgia teaches STD and HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention. This is what it is called. It is similar in MT. Georgia, at least in the county we used to live in, did not provide condoms at school. In Montana, some of the school systems, with county funds, do provide condoms.

                  Now, as for Palin. Only once has she weighed in on the issue. In a forum I believe before her election to Governor, she was asked whether she would "support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools"

                  Her response was: "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

                  So to me, she was saying that at the Governor level, she would not support explicit sex-ed programs. Meaning she would not want to fund it from state funding. Which is in line with Federal funding for these programs.

                  • 1 vote
                  #5.15 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:00 AM EDT
                  Danny McGee

                  Thank you for the clarification and insight, AWM. However, this raises the question of what the hell is wrong with "explicit sex-ed programs" and distribution of contraceptives? First of all, what the hell constitutes an "explicit" sex-ed program? Sex = penis goes into vagina, and then lots of fascinating biological @!$%# happens with the end result being the release of sperm. It doesn't get any more, or less, explicit than that. If you aren't teaching that you aren't teaching sex-ed, and if you're not only going to push abstinence but also decline from teaching sex-ed, little Johnny is going to be very confused and disturbed on his wedding night. (I'm being hyperbolic, of course, but seriously, what do they mean by "explicit"?)

                    #5.16 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 2:41 AM EDT
                    jamiewb

                    It should be noted that the education program does not just say "Don't have sex". They cover all forms of birth control and STD prevention, with an EMPHASIS on abstinence. What they can't do, with the federal funds, is provide condoms in school.

                    Why would anybody call that "abstinence only"?

                    Two main forms of sex education are taught in American schools: comprehensive and abstinence-only. Comprehensive sex education covers abstinence as a positive choice, but also teaches about contraception and avoidance of STIs when sexually active. A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive.[15]

                    Abstinence-only sex education tells teenagers that they should be sexually abstinent until marriage and does not provide information about contraception. In the Kaiser study, 34% of high-school principals said their school's main message was abstinence-only. wikilink

                    If you want to have comprehensive sex-ed, call it what it is.

                      #5.17 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 10:56 AM EDT
                      AngryWhiteMan63

                      Jami, I know what wiki says. But what I provided above is real world. From two different states. Georgia and Montana. Where we lived in Georgia and where we live here in Montana both programs are called Abstinance only programs. And both provide all the information about all forms of birth control. BUt you missed the point. It's not birth control that's taught, it's STD, HIV prevention.

                      Call your local high school, and ask to speak to a couselor. Ask them:

                      What the program is called
                      What it teaches as far as methods (abstinance only or all forms of BC)
                      Do they provide condoms, and if so, where does that funding come from.
                      Is it a Title V program.

                      These are the questions I asked yesterday at our high school.

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.18 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:32 PM EDT
                      AngryWhiteMan63

                      This is Montana's program. It's a PDF file.

                      http://www.opi.mt.gov/pdf/hived/K-12OPIActivities.pdf

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.19 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:44 PM EDT
                      jamiewb

                      Fair enough, I just can't figure why anybody would call that "abstinence only". If I was a parent that didn't want my kids learning about all these different kinds of BC, and was told that my school taught an "abstinence only" program, only to later find out that it only meant that they weren't using fedral funds to give kids condoms, I'd be more than a little pissed off.

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.20 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 12:50 PM EDT
                      AngryWhiteMan63

                      Okay, now I'm angry. Why can't you people do your own research, instead of just getting your talking points from Daily Kos?

                      Did anybody bother to see what type of sex education is available in her state of Alaska? No? Well, not to worry. I did the research for you:

                      The Alaska Department of Education & Early Development does not endorse specific curricula, but seeks to provide districts with the most up-to-date materials and research-based programs so schools can evaluate what best meets the needs of their student population.

                      Now go to this website, and follow the second link to the available courses for the program. Hey, look here:

                      Safer Choices
                      SAFER CHOICES (SC) is a comprehensive intervention to reduce the number of students engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse by reducing the number of students who initiate or have sex during their high school years, and by increasing the use of latex condoms and other birth control methods among those students who do have sex.

                      Wow, a course that talks about condoms? In an Alaska School? With Sarah Palin as Governor?

                      Do you people seriously think that this would be an acceptable course for educating the youth of Alaska is she were the No-Condom No-Sex Monster you make her out to be?

                      If I seem angry, I am. I can't believe you people would just run off at the mouth (or fingers as it were) without doing some research.

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.21 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:03 PM EDT
                      jamiewb

                      What the heck are you talking about?

                      Where in this entire seed have I said anything about Gov. Palin?

                      • 2 votes
                      #5.22 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:37 PM EDT
                      AngryWhiteMan63

                      Sorry Jamie. I was generalizing about all the folks coming into the threads with preconceived notions on Palin, without doing research. Not directed at you specifically. Sorry.

                      • 2 votes
                      #5.23 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:54 PM EDT
                      Danny McGee

                      Do you people seriously think that this would be an acceptable course for educating the youth of Alaska is she were the No-Condom No-Sex Monster you make her out to be?

                      A governor is not omnipotent over their state, AWM. We've had a staunchly pro-life president for the last eight years and Roe v Wade is still in effect.

                      However, I did some Googling just now because you brought it up, and the Anchorage Daily News described her as being pro-contraception. I'm not sure what their definition of "pro-contraception" is (they didn't expound on it), but I also didn't read the previous article on here about Palin opposing condoms even for married couples. I'd be interested to know where that information came from, so I'll have to look it up.

                      • 1 vote
                      #5.24 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:55 PM EDT
                      jamiewb

                      No offense taken. I wasn't sure if you meant that I was one of you people. In context it looked like you did.

                      Let me assure you, I wouldn't wipe my ass with the Daily Kos.

                        #5.25 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 2:08 PM EDT
                        AngryWhiteMan63

                        As for 5.20, I think it has to do with emphasis. The counselor at the high school here told me they talk about all BC, but they emphasize Abstinence, because it is the only 100% effective method.

                        This is from the Georgia core curriculum for 9th grade:

                        6. Symptoms and long term consequences of HIV/AIDS and other STDs
                        7. Testing and treatment resources for STDs
                        8. Abstinence from sexual activity and from injecting drug use to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs
                        9. Methods of preventing pregnancy and STDs and effectiveness, abstinence only sure way
                        10. STDs, including HIV/AIDS, communicable diseases and abstinence only sure method of prevention
                        11. Abstinence from sexual activity and from injecting drug use most effective methods of preventing HIV/AIDS
                        12. HIV/AIDS caused by virus
                        13. History of HIV/AIDS in US
                        14. Current statistics of STDs including HIV/AIDS
                        15. Ways HIV transmitted and behaviors that increase risk
                        16. Clinical course of HIV/AIDS
                        17. Returning to abstinence as positive alternative to previous sexual activity
                        18. Uninfected, mutually faithful sexual relationship in marriage/not at risk AIDS through sexual activity

                        Two things to note. #9, they teach all methods, but emphasis Abstinence only.
                        And, on almost all other points, emphasis on Abstinence only. So, like I said, it's the emphasis of the course that makes it an Abstinence only program.

                        And again, 5.21 wasn't directed at you specificaly. My appologies.

                        • 1 vote
                        #5.26 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 2:12 PM EDT
                        AngryWhiteMan63

                        Danny, 5.24. Do you still have the link to that article. Might help when folks start ranting about her position.

                        • 1 vote
                        #5.27 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 2:15 PM EDT
                        Danny McGee

                        Danny, 5.24. Do you still have the link to that article. Might help when folks start ranting about her position.

                        The Anchorage Daily one? It's here, but it's not very descriptive. The line in question literally just says "...she's pro-contraception..." with no quotes or statements or anything of the sort. As for the Newsvine one, I haven't looked for it yet because I've been extremely busy tending to my other article, which has sort of exploded, and writing a really in-depth article for today. I'll do that in due time and then come back to this thread.

                          #5.28 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 8:57 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          AngryWhiteMan63

                          Danny, this is an excellent article. And very appropriate. And my position is no, it should not have any bearing on the candidate.

                          • 3 votes
                          Reply#6 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 6:36 PM EDT
                          oldcrankyman

                          AWM, since she was apparently chosen to placate the Christian right and espouse family values, I'd have to say she's set herself up for this one. When a group chooses to campaign on it's religious integrity and moral superiority, they should expect for this sort of thing to be fair game. As ye reap, shall ye sow, etc, etc.

                          • 2 votes
                          #6.1 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 12:01 AM EDT
                          AngryWhiteMan63

                          Well, if we're going to quote verses, how about "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

                          • 3 votes
                          #6.2 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 12:18 AM EDT
                          Danny McGee

                          I'd have to say she's set herself up for this one.

                          But she didn't just set herself up, she set her daughter up also. Bristol is an innocent bystander here.

                          • 3 votes
                          #6.3 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 9:24 AM EDT
                          oldcrankyman

                          Well, if we're going to quote verses, how about "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

                          Good comeback. Being an atheist I should probably abstain from quoting the Bible. And I'd pretty much have to say that that's a good principle to live by.

                          That being said, it seems that we'd be a bit remiss if we didn't judge the candidates.

                          Just to go totally off topic, I grew up in Missoula, MT where in MT do you live?

                            #6.4 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 11:48 PM EDT
                            AngryWhiteMan63

                            Near Fort Peck, Glasgow area.

                              #6.5 - Fri Sep 5, 2008 12:27 AM EDT
                              Danny McGee

                              Good comeback. Being an atheist I should probably abstain from quoting the Bible.

                              @!$%#, I quote the Bible all the time. Mostly to Christians. I find it fun and amusing to point out their hypocrisy using their own book.

                                #6.6 - Fri Sep 5, 2008 1:40 AM EDT
                                A patriotic American

                                I was stationed with a guy from Missoula, MT back in '92.

                                Sergeant Potter... God I hated that kid.

                                Must have hated him. I don't remember what I ate for dinner three hours ago, but I remember Missoula Potter from 16 yrs ago.

                                • 2 votes
                                #6.7 - Fri Sep 5, 2008 2:10 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                Anibunny

                                Bravo! Thank you. You stole the question I have been asking all morning right out of my mouth.

                                Why does it matter?

                                All morning I have had to hear coworkers discuss such things about how this apparently shows that Palin is unfit to run a country. How this goes against what Palin stands for. How they don't want someone "like that" in the White House. But really, I fail to see a connection.

                                I just think to how I am and what values I hold differently from my parents. All the opinions I hold differently from my parents. But my opinions, my life, my decisions and choices ( whether viewed good or bad by my parents ) doesn't change their job performance.

                                First of all, Bristol Palin is not a politician. She is not currently running for office, on the national level or otherwise.

                                I want to repeat that over and over again.

                                • 3 votes
                                Reply#7 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 7:10 PM EDT
                                SC Smitty

                                I think the main reason the "left" is making such a big deal out of Palin's daughter, etc., is because they perceive Governor Palin as a real and growing threat. (And, they probably should.)

                                In terms of relevancy, it certainly has nothing to do with her ability or qualifications to serve as a Governor or VP. This is laughable and ridiculous, quite frankly.

                                Case in point, my kindergartner got in trouble at school last week. She did something she knows she's not supposed to do. We've taught her differently and told her a number of times. We love her dearly. She's a great kid, but she did something she really knew better than to do. Unfortunate situation....yes, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my qualifications or aptitude in the workplace. And, it does not detract or diminish in any way from my past accomplishments or ability to attain future goals.

                                Totally irrelevant.

                                • 4 votes
                                Reply#8 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 9:19 PM EDT
                                jodie12341Deleted
                                A patriotic American

                                Just a quick look at this from a different perspective.

                                One problem this story creates is that you can no longer have an actual discussion of the issues.

                                Fast forward us to a VP debate. When the issue comes up concerning abortion (which you KNOW it will), that discussion can easily move into prevention of pregnancy in the first place. How do you do that? Education and prevention. Normally you would expect Biden to make a comment along the lines of:

                                "If our children do not receive adequate sex education or are discourages from using any prevention, pregnancy is the obvious result. That is where Palin's views are twisted and won't work."

                                IF he makes a perfectly relevant comment like that, all of a sudden, HE is the bad guy who is exploiting a 17 year old girl who has nothing to do with the campaign. Of course, if Palin's daughter never was pregnant, his statement is looked at as a serious discussion of the issues. Now it is considered a disgusting tactic.

                                So should the Dems completely forget about the whole issue? Of course not. It is a HUGE issue (Teen pregnancy and how to prevent it... not Bristol's own pregnancy). Palin's stance on sex ed and prevention are totally out of line with reality. If she brought up her children with the same mindset (no ed / no prevention), then what happened with Bristol is a reflection of that policy.

                                Of course, like Danny said, one person is not a statistic. However, the Dems won't even be able to cite legitimate stats now without being called the disgusting people dragging Bristol through the mud.

                                That's. all I have. I just wanted to open a new perspective for thought.

                                • 3 votes
                                Reply#10 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 10:11 AM EDT
                                Danny McGee

                                Definitely a valid point. Although I'm not really seeing that level of negative interpretation. "Pregnancy is the obvious result" might be considered a kind of tongue-in-cheek jab just because of the wording, but if it was phrased more as, "Statistics have shown over and over again that abstinence-only education just doesn't work. If you look at school districts teaching x prevention methods versus school districts teaching abstinence only, the difference in rates of teenage pregnancy is staggering," I don't think it would draw any fire from the right for being insensitive. And not only that, but it would be a much better-constructed and more convincing argument to those on the fence than in essence saying, "Well, look at your own daughter, she's proof your methods don't work." Remember the 04 presidential debates? Gay civil rights was a major talking point in the debates, but things didn't get hairy until Kerry specifically mentioned Cheney's daughter, and then @!$%# hit the fan. I think as long as personal attacks are left out of the argument, no one would consider the topic itself off-limits or taboo in any sort of way.

                                • 2 votes
                                #10.1 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 10:27 AM EDT
                                A patriotic American

                                I've liked a lot of what you say around the vine, but I have to say I think you are being naive.

                                I don't think the dems (candidates themselves anyway) are going to personally attack Palin's daughter. They may attack her stand on education/prevention though. No matter how tactful, I believe the media or post-debate coverage or whatever will link those arguments to Palin's daughter.

                                The media from the left will point it out just to keep it in the news... and Fox (err, media from the right) will point it out and spin it that the Dems were trying to sling mud.

                                There are very few actual independent major news networks anymore (possibly just my opinion). They are all trying to spin every political story one way or the other.

                                This is not necessarily the news channel trying to entertain with juicy stories. It is more like the news channels trying to influence public opinion through the use of their stories. It that sense, it's still the political machine that is waging the ugly wars... just using news stations that are friendly to their cause.

                                I kind of miss the old days of "boring" news when the media just regurgitated dry facts and events... then let me decide what I thought about them.

                                • 3 votes
                                #10.2 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 10:48 AM EDT
                                AngryWhiteMan63

                                The problem with your argument is your percieved position of Palin on Sex-ed/Pregnancy prevention. Her only position on this so far has been not to provide State funds to hand out condoms in school. Can you provide a source to back up a position of no ed / no prevention?

                                • 2 votes
                                #10.3 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 1:10 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                MJD-14

                                I share the same views that Bristol's pregnancy should absolutely be kept out of public knowledge. I do, however feel that Sara Palin was lacking in judgement when she let her daughter be involved in this political scandal.
                                This may hurt the McCain campaign.

                                  Reply#11 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 1:08 PM EDT
                                  jaqlyn

                                  I am an Evangelical whose teenage daughter got pregnant. The difference between me and Palin is that I was never so dogmatic against pro-choice, especially with this in my family. It is hypocritical to judge others with this issue when it is in your own home. Judgement or the lack of it has now become an issue with this ticket.

                                    Reply#12 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 2:04 PM EDT
                                    jaqlynDeleted
                                    Hans Klopek

                                    I believe that under normal circumstances, children should be off limits. I don't think she should be subjected to the spotlight ( or paraded around the RNC like a cheap political stunt ). I do believe, however, it is fair to use this issue to bring into question two items:

                                    1) Palin's 'abstinence only' approach to sex ed and her conservative moral views. What a glimmering success this sex ed program was, huh? Irony rocks.

                                    2) McCain's lack of judgment, forethought, and vetting this candidate seriously question his ability to make big decisions and run this country.

                                      Reply#14 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 7:35 PM EDT
                                      Alex DambachDeleted
                                      Leave a Comment:
                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                      FUN STUFF:
                                      • Leaderboard |
                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                      • The Greenhouse
                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                      • Code of Honor |
                                      • Company Info |
                                      • Contact Us |
                                      • Jobs |
                                      • User Agreement |
                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                      • About our ads
                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com