I’m not a fan of kids raising kids. But, if the teenager has family support and is able to continue her education (the best predictor as to if she will ever be truly independent from her family and the government) then I see the situation as do-able.
Though the point is rather moot now, I wish our country (and federal dollars) for the past years had gone to more than abstinence only education. Telling kids “just don’t do it” doesn’t cut it and teenagers and their children often pay the price.

One wonders if there was ever a real expectation for the 2 “kids” to marry? Since Mom was running for VP, she was almost obligated to say that…and that pressure was obviously on the 2 kids. I’m not a Palin fan, but I would be surprised she’d be willing to say…OK, time to give the baby away. It is her grandchild. I couldn’t do it.

“The Palins are an intact intergenerational family of some means who welcome their newest member. It does not seem that there is any reason for Todd and Sarah to want to give away their first grandchild. They have education, money, a large home, relatives and friends to help the young mother. Adoption is not necessary. I suppose that if they did attempt to do so, then you would be chortling about their hypocrisy on family values. Is that what you are angling for on this thread? A trap for conservatives?”
An interesting post, Gerard. So…let’s examine this can of worms that has been opened.
Is single-parenthood OK for those who have grandparent support and the wealth to provide adequately for the child?

My daughter is adopted, and I think I’m going to surprise you with what I am about to say.
I believe that – whenever possible, teenager or not – the child should stay with their mother. The teen mother will need support, for sure – but she doesn’t have to get married. Bristol is a good example of a young mother who has plenty of support, with or without Levi.
At the end of the day, it is a far better solution than the birth mother wondering, missing the child, feeling guilty for the rest of her life; and the birth child wondering, missing and feeling abandoned for the rest of his/her life.
I did say whenever possible. There are circumstances of course, where a mother is not able to take care of the child. Again, by and large, if they can stay together, they should.

My opinion is, if teen mother is able to provide for the child whether it is through her own means or help from family, she should TRY to keep the child. If teen Mom can see no possible means to provide for the child, then it should be HER decision, not government, PTA, friends or other pressure put upon her. She chose not to abort – that’s a good thing. During and after the birth, hopefully she can get good advice and help in deciding the best course of action for EVERYONE! So folks, we need to support our unwed mothers, not shame them. I know it is hard to not be greatly dissappointed in your “baby girl” to find that she is pregnant. But, as a society, we need to be upholding, and supportive to a young troubled girl. Remember that the child’s welfare depends on cool level heads to prevail. AND LOVE!

Like, dude, it’s a baby. Babies are indestructible. She can give it away now and it will be ok. Sarah Palin 2012!!!!!

“I did say whenever possible. There are circumstances of course, where a mother is not able to take care of the child. Again, by and large, if they can stay together, they should.’
One of the most frequently used arguments by conservative evangelicals against single-sex couples adopting children is the argument that a child’s needs are best met by being raised by two, opposite-sex parents…a mother AND a father. Many, many times I have heard this used to castigate those who would attempt to place children into adoption with same-sex couples or well-qualified single parents.
We now have a situation where the daughter of a very popular conservative politician, who happens to be evangelical in her religious leanings, not only has a daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock but is now in the position of being a single mother, apparently by choice (if the quotes attributed to Bristol are correct).
In the past when such choices have been made (the fictional Murphy Brown and the very real Jamie Lynn Spears being two such cases), conservative evangelicals have been among the loudest critics.
Gerard’s response to Steven’s question opens up a series of questions that I would hope could be explored in the light of the Palin family situation.
- In a situation where a young, single mother has the strong support of both of her parents, as well as a solid financial underpinning to provide for the needs of the child, is single-parenthood a beneficial option for that newborn child?
- As another poster mentioned, save for the financial circumstances the Palin family situation resembles the family situation of many, many single parents in the African-American community. Extended families are often quite involved in the raising of grand-children, even great-grandchildren. Yet in these circumstances the general consensus is that the child would normally be better off being put up for adoption? Why?
- If the primary difference justifying single parenthood in the Bristol Palin case is financial, then why deny adoption to same-sex couples who have solid financial foundations with which to care for the needs of a child (or several children)?
It goes to the heart of the argument that the best situation for the child is ALWAYS a two-parent, mixed gender environment, and anything that falls short of that should be considered less than satisfactory.
And to Gerard…it’s not a trap. It’s merely an attempt to explore a series of presumptions given a circumstance presented to us.

Steven: The guy in the White House was only raised by his grandparents from the age of 10 onwards. Until then he lived with his mother and stepfather in Hawaii and Indonesia. Ideal? No. But not quite as stark as you make it out to be.

Good Evening RJohnson,
Five out of the seven years that I worked in Times Square with homeless teens in the 1980′s were spent with the mothers and babies. I came away from that experience with terribly mixed thoughts on the subject. I abhored then, as I still do, the welfare state that punishes responsibility and rewards irresponsibility.
If a couple of eighteen year olds had a baby, the mother was entitled to all sorts of medicaid and welfare benefits. If she married the father, though they both might be just as unskilled and impoverished, the benefits were practically nill. Why? Not every young mother in the inner city today has her mother or grandmother to turn to. Not even close.
You say:
“As another poster mentioned, save for the financial circumstances the Palin family situation resembles the family situation of many, many single parents in the African-American community. Extended families are often quite involved in the raising of grand-children, even great-grandchildren. Yet in these circumstances the general consensus is that the child would normally be better off being put up for adoption? Why?”
I say that this is not at all accurate. Quite aside from finances is education, the general safety of the neighborhoods, the illiteracy of most of the teen moms I dealt with (who helps the child with schoolwork?), the subculture of drugs and violence too many of these mothers get into with an endless parade of drug dealing boyfriends in and out of the house who abuse the children. The list of depravations goes on and on. The difference in finances is the least of it.
The manifestations of poverty and family structure and support are as numerous as the different ethnic groups who experience them. Fully 1/4 of all African American males can expect to be dead or in prison by age 25. The same cannot be said for other ethnic groups.
Clearly something is going on, and yet I find the concept of means testing parenthood hateful!
Yes, children do best with both a mother and a father. They do best when it’s THEIR mother and father. For all of the problems that teen pregnancy produces, and they are legion, I simply do not agree with severing the bond between mother and child for transient causes such as educational achievement or work history. The bonds of blood are sacred.
My point to Steven was simple. If Bristol Palin, whose child enjoys every advantage of extended family, social status, economic security, etc. is not considered fit to mother, then what do we say to those who bring far less resources to the table for their children? Would we not need to reopen the orphanages?
All of this strengthens the case for traditional sexual morality: abstinence until marriage, fidelity thereafter. Bristol rebelled against that. She got pregnant and refused to add her baby to the 50+ million butchered at the altar of Roe v Wade. The same for her poorer counterparts. Should we consequently make war on motherhood itself by means testing it? Would means testing stop at out of wedlock births? Would young widows lose their children, or women whose husbands are sent to prison? What would the cut-off on the W2 be for parenthood?
If women faced the prospect of such draconian measures, abortions would in all likelihood triple. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch once opined that if every church and synagogue in America adopted two homeless families, the problem would be wiped out. He was right. Shouldn’t our Churches do the same for young single mothers? Help them with all the resources we can bring to bear to assist their maturation and child’s welfare? That’s what Jesus calls us to do; not means test motherhood.
All the Best.

First of all, Bristol’s baby is named Tripp not Trigg. Trigg is Sarah’s baby.I know, who the heck can even make sense of these crazy names? However, it is not the grandparents’ obligation to support a young adult woman or man who irresponsibly has a child.
It’s very nice if Sarah and Todd Palin feel obligated and are of means to help Bristol. However, it also makes it quite easy for Levi Johnston to skirt his obligation of child support. So far he has demanded face time with his new baby boy, but until he gets a job and starts paying for child support, he legally is not entitled to much at all.
I don’t believe Bristol should go on public assistance, either. Rather, she should get her h.s. diploma and get a job and go to school either when the baby is older or go part-time. Too many of these kids having babies think that it is the public’s obligation to pick up the tab or their parents’. Until they are faced with the stark realities of responbility these scenarios will continue to be repeated generation after generation.
Irresponsbile behavior should no longer be rewarded in this country. And it is very much a theme of why our economic crisis continues. No one is held accountable for anything anymore!

I’m shocked… African American teen girls only have 1/4 of Bristol’s intellect? Such a broad and racist statement, which doesn’t seem to bother anyone else.

Did the editor-in-chief of Beliefnet actually make the statement, “I don’t know when adoption is the right approach … (B)ut it seems that a decent argument can be made … that those would be the circumstances in which putting a child up for adoption ought to be considered.” OMG, man, it is 2009 – did you not get yet that adoptionis about the CHILD and not the parents? And when is it not best that the child be with his or her own family? Why would you even suggest adoption or as ignorantly, equate it as an alternative to abortion? (Well, since you are not a woman, you might not get that.)
Your thinking is very out of date and culturally uninformed: although adoption is more “open” in the U.S. today, it is because we have evolved as a society and we know can admit that adoption is not a cure for a couple’s infertility or another couple’s unplanned pregnancy. Please wake up to this, Steve. This is not about faith or religion or morality: it is nto about abortion versus adoption and please don’t make it so!
It is simply about how we as a society care for our young and provide them with what is best. We should not be taking one woman’s child and giving it to another and pretending no one will care or that “either mother” will do. That has been proven not to be true! We know that animals don’t live that way – why should we as humans? And we also should admit that other cultures don’t promote adoption either — wake up to that reality, please! Every effort should always be made to keep every child and her/his own mother together!

No Bristol should not put her son up for adoption. Why do that when he is well provided for and taken care of? Is it because her mom Sara is in the political spotlight and thats not suppose to happen to people like her? A child was born into a loving, caring family that provide him with everything he needs. He is not abused or neclected or homeless and dosnt need to be given up for adoption.
Opinions differ and mine is Bristol keeps her baby in the loving family he has.

Dear Shocking,
“I’m shocked… African American teen girls only have 1/4 of Bristol’s intellect? Such a broad and racist statement, which doesn’t seem to bother anyone else.”
First, learn to report accurately what others write. I said 1/4 of Bristol’s literacy, not intellect. The two are substantially different. Secondly, I was speaking of the teen mothers, which are a subset of all of the rest of the girls. Third, I chose to work with this population for seven years of my adult life, and for VERY little in the way of salary. I don’t speak from some theoretical position. I’ve been there.
If the ugly truth is shocking to you, I can understand that. However, it is not racist to state what is widely known in the social scientific literature. Perhaps you may have even read newspaper accounts of the stunning illiteracy rates and social promotion in inner city schools. You may even have read how conservatives such as myself support school voucher programs for these children so that they might attend private schools with a proven track record of educating their students, so that we can end this Armageddon. Perhaps you may have heard of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ program that was designed (and failed) to lift this exact population out of illiteracy.
The racist card gets played every time an unpleasant truth is spoken. Doing that is intellectually dishonest and says everything about the one who does so, not about the one speaking the truth.
More truth: Bristol is going off to College. She is by all accounts a bright and fairly well educated student. The majority of the teen mothers I worked with had zero life skills at all. So we held life skill seminars for them every day. Most had difficulty reading books to their children. These girls were poorly served by the adults in their lives. They haven’t helped their cause by becoming mothers at 14 and 15.
If you weren’t too busy getting a case of the vapors, my post actually DEFENDS these girls from having their babies taken from them. The point was, if a child of privilege is expected to give her baby up for adoption, what chance do those children of poverty stand?
Racist? No. Realist? Yes.

First, a little linguistic quibble: The phrase “put up for adoption” is offensive to many in the adoption community. Early adoptions were not too different from slave auctions, with children “put up” on a platform before prospective parents. Check out the link for more.
Second, in Bristol’s case, an adoption would be so incredibly public, with paparazzi following her and the child for the rest of their lives, that it would be incredibly damaging to both her and the child. Strangers would know that little boy’s private history before he was old enough to understand it himself.
Third, losing a child – or a parent – to adoption is devastating. It can be beautiful, and it can save lives, but it should be a last resort. This baby will grow up in a big, loving family, as almost a twin to his young uncle. Debating adoption in this case is an interesting intellectual exercise, but in reality would be an abuse of the practice.

To answer the question simply: If Bristol Palin wanted to keep her child, that’s totally up to her. Her family status should have nothing to do with it.
The problem I have is with her rush to get married. There seems to be some magic associated with “being married” that helps conservatives relate to pregnant women and take them into the fold.
Ironically, these are the same people who claim to be “defending marriage” in their denial of equal rights to gays. But I digress..
Two teenagers find themselves as new parents. They are rushed into a marriage to “legitimize” the situation.
Shock of all shocks, the marriage doesn’t work out!
The question shouldn’t be whether or not she should have put her baby up for adoption. The question should have been “Should she have stayed single?”

“Five out of the seven years that I worked in Times Square with homeless teens in the 1980′s were spent with the mothers and babies. I came away from that experience with terribly mixed thoughts on the subject. I abhored then, as I still do, the welfare state that punishes responsibility and rewards irresponsibility.
If a couple of eighteen year olds had a baby, the mother was entitled to all sorts of medicaid and welfare benefits. If she married the father, though they both might be just as unskilled and impoverished, the benefits were practically nill. Why? Not every young mother in the inner city today has her mother or grandmother to turn to. Not even close.”
Gerard, I strongly agree with your expressed concerns here. I have too often seen young couples avoid marriage for precisely this reason. The two of them, barely graduating from high school, end up working two or three part time jobs to try to make ends meet for their family. If they remain unmarried our government provides assistance in the form of ADC, welfare, housing assistance, medical insurance, childcare assistance etc. The moment they marry that assistance virtually disappears. Why? Because, unfortunately, politicians have decided to means test parenthood in order to save public funds.
As for your call to the houses of worship to open their arms and seek out these young people to care for, I cannot agree with you more!! If our churches would embrace these young people, work with them as Jesus worked with people to first meet their material needs for food, housing, clothing, and basic care, and then work with them to improve their life through education, counseling, and the guidance that elders in our society so long to pass on to the younger generations.
I can only wish that more and more houses of worship would take on one or two such families and help them get on their feet. It might take 2, 3, maybe even 5 years before they are stable (and given the state of our economy these days, a too-young couple starting out with a child is at a terrible disadvantage, even more than in the past). But in the long run the results would be a family that has solid roots in the community.
And the government would not need to be involved to the extent it is today.
With regards to Bristol, I thank you for explaining your position in greater detail. I am very glad that she chose not to abort, and thankful that her family was able to come around her at that stressful time and support her. Not every pregnant young woman has that kind of support. Bristol is blessed in that regard. I hope and pray that the blessing will continue as she raises her wonderful child.

It is up to Bristol and the father whether they want their children or to have them adopted into a loving family. The Palins are an intact inter-generational family. I’ve read both Sarah and her mother were pregnant when they married. It is not unusual that Bristol would have similar family traits. Bristol almost married the father and they may get back together and tie the knot one day.

Could someone please explain the ‘logic’ behind a statement like this:
“All of this strengthens the case for traditional sexual morality: abstinence until marriage”
in reference to either/both of the Palin women, neither of whom abstained until marriage.
How the Palin example “strengthens” the case escapes me.

Gerard,
“Should we consequently make war on motherhood itself by means testing it? Would means testing stop at out of wedlock births?”
I disagree that means testing is some kind of “war on motherhood”. Not only should there be a means test, there should also be a qualification test. Parenting is the toughest job on earth (withthe possible exception of teaching, since so many parents refuse to help out in that department too.
Watched (and so should every potential parent in America) a ‘reality’ series that showed just how unprepared “kids” are to have kids. One, ahem, young woman, did not even know how to change a diaper. Others can’t afford diapers. That’s a heap of ‘lucky’ babies – not.
Just because heterosexuals can procreate doesn’t mean every single last one of them should procreate. Too many unwanted and unloved,uncared for and unprovided for babies already, imnsho.

Husband,
“Just because heterosexuals can procreate doesn’t mean every single last one of them should procreate.”
Neither you, nor any other human being has the right, nor should have the right to make such a determination. As I have discussed with RJohnson above, the answer to the current trouble is a return to Judeo-Christian morality and our Churches assisting young unwed couples in getting established.
Whose standards would be used to means test parenthood? Yours? Mine? If you want a baby of your own, it isn’t too difficult to generate one. But I don’t believe in a form of Eminent Domain whereby young mothers are raided for their babies because of a newly established tyranny of the childless.
Your quotation, inferring control on heterosexual procreation and your willingness to establish a form of Eminent Domain has done more to steel my resolve against gay marriage than any religious conviction ever has. What a despicable agenda. While the rest of us get down to helping strengthen the sacred bonds between mother and child, you may feel free to pursue generating your own however you wish.
BTW, I taught these young mothers how to feed, bathe, diaper, etc for five years long before I became a dad. Why don’t you volunteer some time doing the same, instead of arguing why the sacred bond between those mothers and babies should be severed? Offer them something rather than taking their children away.

This has been for the most part a sophisticated and elegant layout of the issues, rather that sinking down into name~calling and invective.
I’m the father of a teenaged adopted daughter, in a very open adoption, and believe me, adoption is one of the last good choices that should be considered. There is nothing like living with blood relatives (who look like you) who are supportive and caring. It may or may not be better to have two married parents in the mix, but remember that the extended (not nuclear) family is the norm in the world. Being brought up in a multi~generational blood~related family helps ensure a continuous and caring childhood.
I’m no fan of the Palins, but I was impressed with Bristol’s live interview, which Grandma Sarah joined in on, and came away with a feeling that these are loving people who will do their best to create a good life, on their terms, for Tripp or Trigg or whoever it is. I discounted all the BS during the campaign about them getting married and living happily after~it was transparently self~serving. But reality goes on.

I find it difficult to distinguish between the simple reality – a young woman, a young man and a baby on the one hand and the whole Caribu Barbie and hypocrisy of conservative Christians and Republicans of which Palin is fast a Platonic ideal, on the other.
Maybe it is because I am gay, but I just don’t understand why a young couple in today’s world would want to take the risk of becoming pregnant before they were ready to provide a good home for their baby?
Certainly, I can understand (tho’, of course, not countenance) the position of many conservative Christians that birth control is a sin. Fine and dandy, but if you don’t want to use birth control, then you can’t engage in procreatory activities. Can one of the heterosexual conservative Christians explain this seeming discrepancy to me? Surely, the maturity necessary to recognize the ‘evil’ inherent in preventing life would suffice to recognize that sex without contraception leads to pregnancy?
The rationale of means testing has failed, utterly. The results are plain to see and I do think there is very much a racist component to the whole affair – Negros and Latinas are enormously more at risk of endless poverty through childbirth than are other members of the US population. Were all these couples faced with the problem white skinned (married=no help, single mom=endless poverty but not starving to death), the whole system would have been overhauled decades ago.
Genevieve, political correctness is not my strong point (Europeans tend to focus more on actually fixing problems than addressing ‘issues’, so I suspect your concerns are more those of a certain university set than the actual children who are adopted. My native tongue refers to the processes as ‘offered for’ instead of ‘put up’ which certainly sounds more like a used car with a sign in the window, yet our adoption standards are much higher than in the US and the baby or child is always given legal precedence over the parents.
What term would you prefer? Why do you prefer it? We went through this discussion over ‘niggardly’ back in 2008, without any alternative or rationale being offered, this time I’d be interested in an answer.

Husband,
Some further observations on you thoughts.
“Just because heterosexuals can procreate doesn’t mean every single last one of them should procreate.”
In the Buck v Bell Supreme Court Case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the 8-1 opinion that upheld the sterilization laws of the early 20th Century in America. They, too, felt not everyone should reproduce. Ideas have consequences, as this quote from the opinion shows.
“Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, &c.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who, if now discharged, would become [p206] a menace
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Seems like history is repeating itself.
Finally, I have a question relative to this from your post:
“One, ahem, young woman, did not even know how to change a diaper.”
Is diaper-changing skill some innate form of knowledge in homosexual men? If not, I fail to see the point of your mentioning this. As for some not being able to afford diapers, I’m sure you’ll get some of your friends together and buy one of these girls some diapers and then share your expertise in child care.

Gerard,
That was the closest to snarky I have ever seen you come.
Actually, now that it has been scientifically established that gay men and straight women have the same brain anatomies, and given the well-known distaste of gay men for anything disorderly or stinky or messy or not squeaky clean, yes we do come with an instinctual ability to change diapers. With one hand.
I have mixed feelings about sterilization. On the one hand, it seems that the risk of abuse is far to great – we already have conservative Christians saying it is perfectly OK to abort a fetus when it is discovered in vivo that the child is gay. From there to electro-shocks, castration, institutionalization, denial of human rights…well, we have already got all of that in the good ol’ USA.
The capacity of these people to oppress women and gays is deep, very deep.
At the same time, I have not one but two grand-nieces, a grand-nephew and soon another grand-nephew who are all mentally defective. That is not unusual in red-nex families and the fact that one of my nieces married her half-brother on one side and first cousin on the other side only served to reinforce quite a few nasties. But heh – in that state it is all legal, so it must be desired of God, no?
Anyway, the position of the family in general and the guy (me) who managed the money during two of those pregnancies of known seriously genetically defective babies was, keep them, don’t abort them, use our money to raise them as well as possible.
But I have urged my niece to 1) stop having more kids. To no avail, of course. 2) To have the kids sterilized because the odds of them creating more seriously handicapped kids (sorry, my patience with American political correctness has done up and gone) approaches 1.
We need to stop fighting each other over the hopeless and unattainable goal of ending all abortion and refusing non-Vatican approved birth control methods. It is time to find means to reduce abortion as far as possible and that means your side is going to have to work with our side or just plain accept that you are willing to see babies aborted just for the sake of some sort of theoretical purity of position. I do believe there was a comment about this, Non facias malum ut inde veniat bonum, in one of the law classes I audited a few hundred years back or so.

…far too great…
sorry, jet lag…

Panthera,
If you can change a diaper with only one of those panther’s paws, then I doff my chapeau sir ;o) It took me both hands and feet the first few times.
Snarky is a style that I try to avoid. However, I meant every word of what I said. A few responses to your post.
“The capacity of these people to oppress women and gays is deep, very deep.”
Yes, for some it truly is. And they’ll spend an eternity in hell for it unless they repent and learn to see Jesus in those less-than-perfect people whom they despise. Fraternal admonition and correction is understandable, but it crosses the line into deep sinfulness when it becomes oppression and hostility.
You are an honorable man for having supported so well your handicapped family members and their parents. I also appreciate the desire not to see devastating handicaps perpetuated in the next generation, however, here our paths diverge.
I too live every day with handicap. My nine year old son has autism, ADHD, and Mixed Expressive/Receptive Language Disorder. He has progressed from moderately severe to mainstream in school, though with some significant areas of development yet to go.
My own suspicions, as a biologist, about the etiology are germ line mutations in older fathers (I was 38 when he was born). Males, it seems, have biological clocks as well.
Yes, handicaps throw all of our best laid plans to the wind. They strain our marriages and deplete our financial resources. I could not have the career in science that I had trained for because of the conflict between the requirements of the job and my son’s needs.
The only thing worse than the handicap would be to look at my son and say that I do not see him as worthy of having a child of his own. Does he have special needs? Yes. Is he defective? Absolutely not. A great many of us redeem and perfect ourselves as humans in encountering the handicapped with love.
I’ve learned to let go of all of those dreams I had for him when he was born and to live a life of faith and hope. That he may never become the type of adult in society that I had initially hoped he would become is not a function of his worth, but of my projections being frustrated by the reality of one who was made in the image and likeness of God. In making my peace with that. I have become free to love him completely for who he is. That leaves no room for sterilization.
As for abortion and birth control, the Church only needs to bear witness to the truth, not accommodate fornication.
Be Well.

Gerard,
Certainly your son was lucky to be born into a family with you as the father.
The handicaps we face are considerably more serious, sadly. You just can’t run from century to century reinforcing bad genes without eventually reaching the point where the term “double recessive’ is moot as any near-relation mating will involve these variations, be they good or bad.
I was lucky, my parents broke with tradition on both sides. I excuse myself, I knew when I met my husband 24 years ago that we were close cousins – but we will never have biological offspring.
My conservative brother bent over backwards to restore the family lines and yikes, his wife managed to do even worse. If you wonder why I get so very angry at conservative Christians who cherry pick science, that is a big reason.
Half my nephews bleed uncontrollably if you just look at them cross-eyed…these and other, even more serious problems can be ameliorated by throwing money at them, but does the pain and suffering of these children justify the egoism of their mother?
We aren’t even in the ballpark on finding a clue as to how to repair most of this genetic damage. And yes, one of my grand-nephews is HIV+ from a transfusion many years ago. That frequently plays into my rage, fury and loathing when dealing with conservative Christians and Republicans who purposely let the Aids epidemic progress because the virus was first found in gays and Negros.
Anyway, at one level I can understand your position regarding the church, it has been a tough slog for me to accept that you are a decent person as my first approximation dealing with conservative Christians is always to assume the worst – and am seldom wrong.
However, I do wonder, is it truly enough for you to just let these bad things happen when you could reach a level of rapprochement with us on the left to significantly reduce them? Was there not a time (John 23, for instance) when the church saw value in another role?
I am not catholic. My history lessons did, however, include quite a bit of church history and most of the positions taken by the church on which we disagree are neither dogma nor necessarily traditional, at least if you go back eight hundred years or so.

Panthera,
First, I thank you for your kind words. I’m used to certain factions of conservative Christians ruining the picnic for the rest of us. But I endeavor to be at least decent as I try to be faithful. Your anger with conservative Christians is just a little palpable on the threads, no? ;o) It is entirely understandable. While I hold to a traditional sexual morality, I detest the homophobia as much as you do. As not only a Catholic, but also a microbiologist (molecular and medical), need I say where I stand on the eradication of HIV?
These are searing questions that you propose. There is no easy way to answer them without sounding somewhat insensitive or obtuse. As you are a fellow academic, I know that we can toggle between a discussion that treats the moral/ethical principles and the lived realities of our lives.
To begin, the problem that you describe sounds pretty much like hemophilia. Are there also cognitive dysfunctions? The reason that I ask is that, as you know, close marrying within families over generations tends to select several recessive traits simultaneously. I also ask because I wonder to what extent they are capable of deciding to seek spouses outside of the clan.
This matters. The choice would seem to be honoring their preference, but opening a Pandora’s box in order to ameliorate the genetic consequences of their decision. On the other hand, these matters could easily be fixed by marrying outside of the established lines of consanguinity. The latter seems to me to be the most sensible for a host of reasons.
First, You bear witness to the value in the latter approach by bearing witness to your parent’s decision.
Second, The Orthodox Jews test for genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs before marriage. This prudent approach to mate selection precludes the conditions that would tempt one toward abortion or sterilization.
Third, It is always to everyone’s advantage when we struggle mightily to preserve the moral and ethical norms. Is sterilization really necessary in your family, an absolute inevitability? Or is it instrumental to preserving without untoward consequences the mating patterns that have come to be somewhat normative?
I’m more than a little frightened by the return to the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century. For all of their suffering, I know of no handicapped or diseased person who would choose never having existed to their existence as is. They may wish for a better existence, but not for nonexistence.
I wouldn’t denigrate your virtuous and compassionate assistance as “throwing money at them”. That’s not your motivation Panthera. That money flows to them from a heart overflowing with love and compassion. And yes, it’s also an angry heart that sees suffering that need not be. But sterilization is defeatist and cynical. Paradoxically, it arises in large and generous hearts that feel somewhat frustrated to effect positive change.
It is certainly definitive in its effects. Its perversity is that it doesn’t define the love in your heart so much as the anguish and frustration.
If you’re not Catholic, allow me to say that you’re most welcome to join us any time! Your goodness and decency are far greater than any differences between us, and that’s where I prefer to keep the focus.
God Bless.

Gerard,
Oh, yes the whole range one would expect. I guess it is adequate to note that my husband and I both qualified for Mensa, and both my parents were long members (and we will leave it at that, I know the organization has evolved since the conflicts which caused them to resign).
Unfortunately, that’s the end of it for this family. As I wrote, we won’t reproduce, even when this becomes possible. One look at us and you’d immediately conclude ‘hillbilly scot’s-irish, inbred these last thousand years’. actually, the records are vague earlier than the 12th century, but it’s pretty easy for me to understand the Appalachian problems, with few interruptions there has been far too little drift in this teeny-tiny swimming hole.
No, I don’t see any of this line as capable of making a competent decision regarding marriage and mating. To the extent my early training as a teacher is useful, at best we see dull-normal and on down. Far down. I don’t advocate such steps blindly, but someone who will never be able to care for themselves will only be abused if not great care is taken to protect them.
Would I be so generous if money weren’t irrelevant? Now, that is the tough one. But, yes, I do try to be fair, tho’ it is tough not to prefer my other niece’s kids, both of whom were already reading to me at the age of four. She married a nice guy from Mexico who teaches engineering. My brother banned her from his family for that…
Actually, I am not welcome in the Church – our local Erzbischof is still fuming over gay marriage in general and mine in particular. For decades I would quietly attend the local Church when I was in town, he has asked all regional priests to not address any gays who are married. Were I to push the point, guess who’d end up paying for it. But thank you for the loving invitation. The church can not long stand against herself, this era will end after the current Pope and we will return to an Italian and the decadent moderation of the South.
Rod is quite right in his diagnosis, tho’ he is rapidly backing himself into a corner and needs to avoid the echo chamber while at the same time there just aren’t that many like sigilaris around. For myself, yes, by the end of each visit, my anger at the situation rises enormously. Our love is genuine, ultimately that should be the only test of our relationship.
Take care, and aren’t we both glad we don’t have the Palins’ problems?

As the father of an adopted son, I’d like to comment. I am white and my son is African American. he is now 37 years old, but when he was only 4 weeks old my first wife (also white) and I adopted him through a private service. His mother was a teen-aged African American whose parents convinced her to put her infant up for adoption.
I can only say that I am so glad she did. I don’t know what became of her, but my son was a loving and lovely child and is a fine and admirable man, a wonderful, caring sibling to his sisters (biological and adopted).

Panthera,
Yes, I’m glad I don’t have the Palin’s problems. With my son and oldest daughter both in third grade and my youngest in kindergarden, I’m up to my eyeballs in early childhood education and socialization. When I look at the Palin episode, I start thinking that saltpeter seems a decent seasoning in children’s food )
What a shame about the Bishop. I’m sure that you’re probably familiar with Rome’s official document:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Not every Bishop is a putz, so consider the universal nature of the Church and know that you are indeed welcome anytime, and not solely for membership. Although, judging from some of your other posts, I can see where you might make a few elderly clerics somewhat dyspeptic ;o)
As for the family, I see that I neglected to make one point when writing earlier. Were I to sterilize my son, I would turn everything I did for him into a lie. I would be saying that I tolerate you, but do not love you for who you are, because I don’t ever want to see another. For all that we have been through together, I am his rock. And he is my light. I’m sure that I can get him to near normal function as an adult, if God is gracious enough to keep me here that long. If I can, I’m sure that there is a girl who will understand and love him just as he is (and he is a very sweet child).
We do establish favorites among the nieces and nephews, don’t we? I’m glad that you don’t let that get in the way of your generosity toward the others. You may get angry when you visit, but I have no doubt that you bring light and life into their lives when you go there.
Be Well.
God Bless.

Gerard,
Thanks for the link – I recall reading it a very long time ago and thinking it was a classic example of trying to square the circle, even in those days.
Of course the Church is right in condemning violence against us, and it is a serious failing that so many of the Catholics here actively incite such violence.
The main problem I had back then and still have today with ‘Cardinal’ Ratzinger’s position is the argumentation he presents, which was basically the same argumentation we heard several hundred years ago on similar findings of the natural sciences – that the science is certainly accurate, but irrelevant.
Now that many decades have passed since homosexuality was removed from the list of mental illnesses in virtually all civilized countries (the position of conservative Christians is, today, only otherwise to be found in the most extreme forms of Islam) and given the fairly recent findings (which have now been independently repeated) that there is a genetic advantage arising from homosexuality, to whit more children survive to adulthood in families which have a strain of male homosexuality than in families which do not have homosexual male offspring, it is time for the church to reconsider the position that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
Our love is valid, it is also socially of value in the Darwinian sense. Clearly, this was not yet conclusive in 1975, tho’ even then there was enough evidence for the Church to have moved beyond her position.
Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to the old conflict between the mindset which led to forbidding priests to marry (and we have all seen the disastrous consequences of that) and the willingness to accept that our progress in the natural sciences forces us to reappraise our interpretation of the Bible and God’s will.
Logically, it is just not possible to argue for denying me and other homosexuals a loving relationship on the basis of such love not fruiting in new children. One can twist it, fold, staple and otherwise try, but were the Church to truly hold this position consequently, then all marriages between a man and woman who are incapable of bearing children would be annulled. The fact that the church does not makes clear that this position is untenable.
Now, the whole sterilization problem is one which should not be approached without serious consideration. Certainly, a child in your son’s position has every right to expect and, I surely hope, to find a partner who will spend their life with him. Nothing you have written would indicate that his offspring would be likely to suffer pain or such disability as to make their lives a living hell.
My grand-nephews and nieces are, however, barely able to survive and could not without the considerable resources my parents invest in their care. We needn’t go into the statistics, theoretically their conditions could be weeded out through current or soon to be realized genetic screening. But there it is – how many fetuses do we abort before we finally get one which is going to have a life without pain? This assuming they are even capable of making such decisions, which at this point I doubt. Political correctness aside, the only reason these kids aren’t institutionalized is because we can invest thousands upon thousands of dollars into their home care every month. I don’t mind, my parents see it as a family responsibility…but the day will never come when they can live independently. The hämophilia in the boys has other consequences, as you no doubt know.
But heh – the question for me is, why isn’t Levi permitted a larger role in the raising of his own child? Here in my country, the first time that Palin brat turned him away at the door without good reason, she would have been hauled into court where the judge would have forced her to recognize his rights…and responsibilities. A very strange system in America.

Panthera,
A very strange system in America indeed. I suppose that if fathers have no right to save their offspring in abortion, then the rest follows suit. We bemoan young men paying young women canine courtesies and then leaving town and the young woman to raise the child alone, but spurn the young man who dares demand a share in the raising of the child. It’s sick and twisted. It’s America in the 21 st Century.
As for the Church and homosexuality, I suspect more than a few Popes and Cardinals may be surprised at who their neighbors are in Heaven.
For your family, I trust that we are not so far away from Molecular Biology providing a cure for hemophilia. Certainly within one more generation. I thank you for this warm and revealing exchange. Not so long ago I commented to Sigaliris that if we could all come together for a night in Little Italy over mounds of pasta and great wine, we would all leave as fast friends. Most people here are not only looking to opine, but searching. I care less for the philosophy and ideology than I do the person behind it all. The boilerplate is boring on a good day.
Beyond the understandable hurt you’ve experienced Panthera, I have come to see an extremely good and honorable man. Whatever the positions we stake out on other threads, know that I have the deepest respect for you and that no conflict of principles can diminish that respect.
God Bless.

Same for me Gerard, same for me. Deepest respect.
You, sigilaris and a few others here soar so far above me it is humbling and challenging.
Right now, real Italy is closer by far than Little Italy, but I’d take either, my driveway is completely under a thick sheet of snow and ice.
Ick.

Personally, I think it is completely inappropriate to even have this debate in this forum as if we have any bearing on Bristol’s choices whatsoever–as if any of our opinions ought to matter! No matter how much we love speculating about these poor people, we do not know them, we do not understand how their family works, we do not know what kind of environment this baby will grow up in. Adoption is not the easy alternative that it is painted out to be! I am not condemning it, of course; but it isn’t a simple default solution for anyone larger society deems incapable of raising a child properly. Seriously people, the other parent is around, she has the support of her family, she has means. Why is her unmarried status automatically reason to give the baby up?

I want to say that I am an adoptive mother. My husband and I decided not to try infertility options and instead adopted two children (full siblings 1 and 3 yo) who needed homes.
My kids are wonderful. They do not have behavior problems, aren’t on any meds and don’t have any abuse issues. They are A or honor role students who play in the band and the orchestra and they both excel at soccer. They are in middle school and are both happy and well adjusted.
But I am here to tell you all. Adoption as an option sucks. It is truly a “least bad” option. If their is any way to possibly keep mother and baby together- do it. Even it means community college instead of Harvard or three to a bedroom- keep them together.
It breaks my heart to see the gaping hole in my children’s soul. The knowledge that you were given away by the person who should love you most wounds and scars children. Knowing that they are not living in the world with the family God put them with, wounds children. Don’t take the idea of adoption lightly. It is a wrenching process that constantly rips open and re-scars. I think adoption is better than abortion- but not by much. We need to work harder to remove the stigma and keep mothers and babies together. A decade later- that kid will thank you.