Pro-lifers and teen pregnancy

As I said in the previous post, Rod.

I would just love to hear what Dr. Dobson, Mr. Perkins, Dr. Land, Rush, Hannity, Jonah, K-Lo, O'Reilly, et al would say if it was suddenly revealed that Barack Obama had an unwed, unmarried daughter pregnant daughter.

It wouldn't be pretty, and we BOTH know that.

Actually, those of us on the left are wondering why this is seemingly the ONLY time those on the right hold up the Christian concept of grace regarding teen pregnancy.

Certainly the whole "I would rather take the risk that taking a softer line on teen pregnancy will fail to discourage some teenagers from engaging in risky sex than take a hard line that drives teens to kill their unborn children via abortion rather than live with the stigma." doesn't seem to apply to teen unwed mothers in many other circumstances, i.e. minorities, those from a lower socio-economic bracket, etc.

We have heard the attacks on that kind of behavior constantly, and absolutely from you Rod, without any real touch of grace or concern regarding what behaviors might be generated by your condemnation. It's "welfare moms", "kids without effective parenting", "sexualizing of youth", etc. Rarely is there any particular note of grace mentioned when the mother isn't a middle-class, white, attractive poster mom for the pro-life position and the NRA.

The real case is that conservatives don't "get" liberals here. We're not concerned about the hypocrisy of going easy on a pregnant teen. We concerned about the seeming hypocrisy of only doing it when it serves your political purpose.

Were it Obama's daughter, I find it absolutely impossible to accept that you, and other conservative blogger's wouldn't be all over Obama, showing how liberal culture has no respect for marriage, how can he run the country if he can't manage his own kids, etc. And the worst of the lot, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. would have a field day with it. Surely you can see that? You say we have a small point. It think it's a rather large one.

On the left, it's clear that what the Right was beginning to portray as some kind of family-values messiah turned overnight into the family values Virgin Mary, without the virgin part, and that a lot of this compassion sure looks like trying to make lemonade when you got handed an unexpected lemon in your berry bunch.

Those realities aside, I'll take a moment to once again state that I think that the daughter is handling it admirably, and that we should keep the news media out of her life. Nor does any of this reduce my chance of voting for McCain/Palin in any way.

I won't be voting for them, of course, but in no way because of this. I won't vote for them because they are pro-Iraq, seemingly bellicose with other countries, against abortion even in the case of rape or incest, wish to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in public schools, support the Bush tax cuts, etc. Their families simply don't enter into the equation one way or the other.

I'd imagine Palin is an excellent mother and a fine wife. She's apparently a well-loved governor. I believe she's bad for America, so I won't support her.

Rod,

You're battling straw men still, I'd say. The issue is not Bristol Palin, although you seem much more interested in showing her charity than you did Jamie Lynne Spears a few short months ago.

The issue is Sarah Palin's judgement, and what her parenting choices can tell us about her personality. I have no problem with conservatives supporting Bristol Palin. I like to think that I'm a conservative who supports Bristol Palin. I do, though, have a problem with parents who both choose to work at stressful out-of-the-home jobs, and then want everyone's sympathy when one of their children makes a bad decision themselves, quite plausibly as a consequence at least in part of those same parenting decisions.

This calls for the difficult Christian challenge of discernment. Can we support Bristol Palin, yet still ask the difficult questions that need to be asked about a potential American president? I'd like to think that we can. And if the fact that her son is serving in Iraq is to be seen as a reflection on Sarah Palin, her daughter's pregnancy must be seen as the same.

Goodnight.

Doug

I think the Palins, by standing firmly beside their daughter, will serve as an example to parents who are or will find themselves in the same situation.

The thing is, the act that created the pregnancy was sinful, but like Rod said, we as Christians believe in the redemptive power of God's mercy.

Bristol Palin and her baby, with the love and support of Bristol's family, have, God willing, full lives ahead of them; and one mistake (the act, not the baby) will not bring the world to an end.

I know that candidates' families are off limits, but I hope that Bristol will continue with her education and serve as an example for other young women facing similar circumstances.

So it's come to this Rod. It doesn't matter if the kids are making it, it only matters that they have the baby. That seems to be conservative philosophy, and your philosophy. Let's be sure to tell the kids in the inner city. The kids who watch tv have already gotten the message, which will be driven home if her mom becomes vp.

There is no hypocrisy here. It's two entirely different situations which call for two entirely different responses.

The first situation is the position that society as a whole should take against extra-marital sex. We're against it. All kinds of difficulties and problems arise because of it -- and not just the problem of children giving birth to children. Therefore it should be roundly condemned and we should fight to make it socially unacceptable.

The second situation is what to do when the unacceptable occurs, and a child results. The proper reaction to that is love and support. Love for the mother, love for the child. There's nothing the least bit hypocritical about loving people who need our love and support.

I don't get why this seems hypocritical. We're not celebrating sex out of wedlock; we're lovingly supporting teens and others who need help.

Nobody should berate this girl.
I'd like to think this revelation will teach the Christian Right to back off in its persistent badgering of those who aren't exactly like them.
If they give this girl a break -- and they should -- they should also stand down from the general moral high ground they claim as the source of their political power.
Gov. Palin has been chosen as the VP candidate chiefly because of her views on social issues, few of which are actually relevant to government. Her suitability to the religious right, which includes the unreasonable assertion that abstinence education is the only acceptable means of birth control, explains her existence on the ticket.
Does this pregnancy prove the girl is morally bankrupt? Nope. They do, however, suggest that her mother's stance on teen pregnancy issues is hopelessly out of touch with reality.
Let's make a deal: We Americans agree to leave the Palins alone. In return, their political-religious brethren agree to confine their moral outrage to the sanctuary of the church.

What on earth was McCain thinking? Is he trying to look senile?

It sure seems like he wasn't paying attention to the details when he chose Palin...

The pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s unwed daughter is not off-limits in discussions of Governor Palin’s fitness to become the Vice President of the United States.

Why? Because your pregnancy is not off-limits to Sarah Palin, even if you are the victim of rape or incest.

The religious right cannot have it both ways. Either everyones' pregnancy should be treated as a personal, private matter or everyones' should be open to public debate. Its amazing that when its a pregnant poor, minority teenager the pro-life community---who will not incur any risk or responsibility for the resulting child either physically or financially---demands she gives birth and supports amendments to laws that will allow the public to get involved in what should be a private matter.
Yet, that seems to change when the woman is white, and from a wealthy influential family who happens to "choose life" in Dreher's words. Many on the right then call for privacy in that situation. What would happen if the left was had aspiratons to be as politically intrustive as the right? Right now, for example, I show statistics in which it shows that young women in Bristol's situation have a much lower chance at graduating high school and making into a living wage socioeconomic status? (Similar to when the right show graphic photos of apparently aborted fetuses) Then demand that Bristol choose to have an abortion, because it would be the "right" thing to do.
Of course, I would never do such a thing because I do not claim the right to peer into other's lives and decisions as the pro-lifers (that I have encountered) tend to. I hope this very sad situation opens the right's eyes that the instrustion on someone's private lives and decisions is wrong in every incidence. I hope they remember that the next time a 17 year old gets pregnant and she makes a different choice than Bristol. I hope they give her a break like they did Bristol

Lauren

I think the problem is that some on the left really see the abortion issue as completely about making a private, intimate choice, regardless of whether the outcome is giving birth or having an abortion. For those on the right opposed to abortion rights, deciding whether to have a baby is a public choice, inasmuch as it affects another human being's fundamental right to exist. So commentators here see a discrepancy between the right's desire to give the Palin family privacy now that their daughter has decided to carry the baby to term, and the right's general condemnation of abortions by other young women in similar situations.

While I disagree with the abortion rights side, I can see how their understanding of the abortion issue leads them to smell hypocrisy in this situation. This is a great example of why conservatism does not equal libertarianism, but conservatives need to start making a stronger case for why some seemingly private decisions we make (to use drugs, to engage in risky sexual behavior, to have abortions) should be subject to public scrutiny. Please note that I'm not saying that we should criminalize these activities, but that the public (whether that's the local, state, or national community) has a right to discourage, condemn, and possible sanction some personal decisions. Choosing an abortion (in my view, the willful murder of another human being) is the exemplar par excellence of such a decision.

To those who are saying that this girl's pregnancy reflects poorly on the Palins' parenting skills- ya'll better start saying "there but for the grace of God, go I" over and over.
The best parents in the world can have kids who stray, sometimes permanently, sometimes temporarily. If you don't understand that, God help you.

Frank: "This is a great example of why conservatism does not equal libertarianism, but conservatives need to start making a stronger case for why some seemingly private decisions we make (to use drugs, to engage in risky sexual behavior, to have abortions) should be subject to public scrutiny."

Don't you think, though, that abortion is a special case, which does not necessarily explode the consevatism vs. libertarianism division. Not being thoroughly libertarian myself, this may be a straw man, but I would think that a libertarian could defend to the hilt people's rights to, say, take drugs, engage in various sex practices, and establish nontraditional families, and yet still vigorously oppose abortion. Don't you think that the prolife movement would do better making clear that the prolife position is independent of the social conservatism of many of its advocates, by making more effort to welcome gays, for example?

One problem with social conservatism is that it frightens off social liberals who may be potential allies. Another is that it begs the question as to whose social conservatism. If you mean just Christian social conservatism, then you must state that, but then you cannot expect the support of non-Christians. Even between the USA and Europe there are major differences between what is understood as social conservatism, the Europeans placing less emphasis on sexual behaviour, and more emphasis on monarchy, deference, and limiting social mobility. Between the USA and other parts of the world the differences are greater.

The whole thing is ridiculous. For whatever reason, there are a bunch of people on the right defining morality as a dichotomy and placing the fulcrum dividing between righteous and unrighteous action just to the side of abortion and murder. Get pregnant from a drunken orgy with multiple sex partners and decide to keep the baby? You're the next posterchild for the pro-life movement. Not happy that a family member got knocked up on their prom night? You are now not standing up for pro-life values. We'll nevermind for the moment that by excusing wreckless and irresponsible behavior, more abortions are probably taking place.

Matters aren't helped when a bunch of folks on the left can only conceive of sex as a recreational activity and then act dumbstruck when teens get pregnant and want to establish a family. For whatever reason, the left expects teens to be able to keep themselves from getting any number of sexually transmitted diseases by engaging in the most wreckless behavior imaginable - multiple partners, higher risk positions, high number of overall sexual partners - but all of the sudden when it comes to raising the next generation, the kids are hopelessly naive. "You should think about marriage before starting a family" is romanticized moralizing, but "You should use a condom" is value free public health information.

One would hope these events would cause Ms. Palin to reconsider her support of "abstinence only" sex education.

Connie asks why we don't act like this:
Don't cheat on this test--but if you are caught, that's ok!
Don't steal--but if you are caught, that's ok!
Don't hit people--but if you are caught, that's ok!

What's the difference between these and getting pregnant at 17?

I think a big part of the idea is that a pregnant teenager is already experiencing the natural consequences of her actions. Now she's going to have a baby, and be a mom, and childhood is over--or else she's going to give up her baby, which is the most heartwrenching action possible. That's quite enough difficulty all on its own, without also being booted out of the house or shunned or whatever.

It's not OK to get pregnant at 17--but life's going to be hard enough without punishment. And why does the baby deserve shame? No, babies deserve love and welcome. With support and love, maybe Young Mom will learn and grow up and not repeat her mistake before she's ready. Without it, what good will come?

It's not like a teenage girl's parents react with joy when their daughter tells them the news. The first sentence is not likely to be, "Oh, we're so happy for you!" There are going to be a lot of tears first; it's more like "I'm so sorry, honey, but we'll work through this together."

Cheating, stealing, hitting--all come with consequences too, like jail time or expulsion. But we still don't have to shun a cheater--he'll have to take the expulsion, but we can still treat him with kindness and work with him to change. He can learn not to do it again.

The left has a point that, mysteriously, when single middle-class white teenagers get pregnant, and choose to keep the child, it's great! But when lower-class minority teenagers get pregnant, it's 'welfare moms' and all sorts of other names.

But, to the conservative's credit, they're trying to balance out a problem they, themselves, have created, and don't quite know the balance yet:

Over the years, they condemned 'bastard' children, and the mothers (almost entirely the mothers) who bore them. This does, in fact, reduce sex outside of marriage, although it's worth pointing out such condemnation has been incredibly sexist and only recently has any attempt been made to balance this out with condemning men also. It's also questionable what the original point of this was: Was it really to stop sin, or was it to maintain ownership of their women?

However, what condemning unmarried mothers has recently started doing is resulting in them having an abortion. Which is sorta, from conservative's POV, having to destroy the village to save it.

Conservatives, in rather a panic, decided to stop condemning unmarried mothers to try to stop abortions, which is fine, although it is rather dishonest to pretend this is some fundamental principle. All you people talking about 'grace' need to look back at the 50s and the 'grace' that was show unmarried mothers then. No grace at all.

This 'grace' only showed up when abortion showed up. For millennium before that it wasn't and even as recently as the 50s we'd Scarlet Letter unmarried mother so badly that anyone who could afford it 'got ill' and had the baby in private, and either gave it up for adoption or had the parents raise it. It's hypocritical and dishonest to claim this as sort of inherent moral stance when everyone can see it was only forced to happen by recent changes allowing abortion.

But, as I've said, the condemnation of sex by Christians is near delusional. Having sex outside of marriage is, morally, no worse than shoplifting some jewelry. Yet we don't wander around telling people that they must refrain from shoplifting or they will be unpure forever, we don't have 'shoplifting virgins', etc.

there is a difference between speaking about the culture and society as a whole and dealing with individuals.

Connie, I don't know about this family in particular but among religious people (Christian and Jewish both) there are many marriages of 17-19 year olds that make it. Down through the generations, to myself married happily 14 years, and young people in these communities continue to do it today. Making marriage work is a choice, and when your subculture not only has high expectations of successful marriages but also the adults and older people actively support and counsel the young married people through their adjustments or trials, it's the most natural thing in the world. I would hope a similarly good environment for this Palin girl's future. May they see their 75th anniversary together. :)

How about single parenthood is extremely bad for children and mothers? Regardless of class, children who are raised by unwed mothers are less likely to finish school or stay out of jail. Across race and class lines, they are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, suffer from mental illness, have a hard time maintaining jobs and relationships. They are far more likely to be the victims of physical and sexual abuse than children raised in intact families. So on and so forth and so on. On every measure of well being, children of single moms are at greatly magnified risk. Mothers who have children out of wedlock greatly reduce their chances of ever getting married, put their financial well being at risk, suffer from more mental illness, etc., etc., etc.

I don't think you actually read my post. I was talking about this attitude over the millennia.

You know, when they didn't even have schools. And single women didn't have 'financial well being' of any sort, or even any finances at all.

At the point that started changing, the Victorian era, the beginning of the women's right movements, it's notable that rules about sex got even harsher, even though people pushing for women to be able to operate on their own were not, in any way at all, attempting to overthrow norms about sexual behavior.

They wanted the right to vote, and own property, and file for divorce out of abusive relationships, not 'free love', and yet, for some reason, society mysteriously, at that time, became incredibly repressive about sex, and the 'current' ideas about 'sexual purity' which is still distorting our discussion first showed up. (It showed up in books about prostitutes which were, really, the first 'independent' women.)

Women's rights leads to condemnations about sex, which in turn leads to condemning pregnancy, the only outward sign of sex. It's happen too many times in history to be some weird coincidence, as has the fact that men have never been condemned as much as women for it. Whereas in societies where women are under fully under the thumb of men, where they aren't asking for any sort of equality...yes, they can't have sex outside of marriage, but it's always regarded as some sort of family issue and not a huge societal problem that needs fixing.

You can argue that the modern era has reason to condemn out-of-wedlock births, but don't pretend that logic is even slightly related to the origin of the condemnation.

What an interesting dialog. This whole topic is TEAMING with so many issues that I am almost glad that the circumstances have raised it (unfortunate though it may be for the Palins and their daughter).

Firstly, her pregnancy is not "the end of the world" - she has a safety net to help her through it (her family). Likely the child will grow within a loving and caring family relationship.

Secondly, marriage at 17/18 - although likely fraught with many difficult issues, is not necessarily a disaster. We all know that there are so many OTHER issues in marriage that can lead to it being a disaster (as statistics prove). Plus we know NOTHING (really) about all the parties involved.

The topic DOES bring a focus to issues that seem to divide and clearly polarize both parties though. Unfortunately, I don't see ANY possibility for consensus. Those on the right will hold to their belifes without compromise and those on the left will continue to blast away at the "inconsistencies" they percieve.

The net result is no solution.

The current policies surrounding this issue (policies that have been in place for nearly 8 years) have failed... miserably. But then the policies that were in place in the prior 8 years also failed... miserably.

Here you are a country that is predominantly Christian (at least you say you are) and hold as your byword "Freedom!" But you tear on another apart (at least in your politics) over your desire to impose your viewpoint on each other.

You cry out against teen motherhood and single-parent families but then mostly ignore these problems once they have passed beyond the basic battle ground of abortion and abortion rights. In fact you put most of your money in to military exploits in your effort to bring your 'freedom' to others.

Ah well... at least it is good theater... carry on.

Abortion has always existed. It hasn't always been easy or safe to get, or legal, but it's always been around.