Monday, September 01, 2008

Yet, I Can Still Imagine Us Losing This Argument

McCain's VP selection is so ripe for mockery, but somehow, we've probably backed ourselves - or will soon allow ourselves to be backed - into a corner from which we can't attack Sarah Palin at all.

You know her kid's knocked up, right? Bristol Palin, 17, is 5 months pregnant. Abstinece only, y'all! It's so very Jamie Lynn Spears, isn't it? And they're getting married, which makes it all okay, right? Totttalllly. Guess Bristol didn't watch those stern warnings at the end of the Secret Life of The American Teenager, eh?

I worked with a woman from Alaska who had her first daughter at about 16. Her take on it was that's what you get for raising kids in a state where there are months with like 16 hours of daylight. How else are they supposed to fill the time. Or something.

Poor McCain thought he'd dodged bad company when Gustav kept the current Prez and Veep away. Bummer.

But, bravely, Sarah Palin chooses to celebrate her daughter's accomplishments:

"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Palin and her husband, Todd, said in a statement.
WRONG ANSWER! Thankfully, the issue never came up in my household, but I'm almost positive that my parents' statement would not have involved the words "proud of."

Wouldn't a better statement have been something to the effect of we're sticking by our daughter and hope that through her mistakes, kids today can learn that they should wait so they aren't faced with this sort of responsibility at this age and p.s. she's grounded until her kid's old enough vote.

Frankly, I find the elder Palins' statement unrealistic and borderline insane. Don't turn this into a pro-life moment of celebration you morons! If you're old enough to have sex, you sure as hell better be old enough to have safer sex. Maybe the condom broke or she skipped her pill that day accidently, but I doubt it. There should be no high-fives in teen pregnancy.

Another article summarizes the Palins' response as: they welcomed the news that their daughter would keep her baby and soon marry. The news? I suppose since she's pregnant at 17, they must frequently get "news" from their daughter. She doesn't seek their counsel? Was this a group decision? Do you not need parental consent for a sub-18 marriage in Alaska? I don't think my parents would accept "news" like that. Bristol is certainly calling a lot of shots for a person who can't even vote yet.

Unfair semantics-based attack? Maybe, but c'mon, hasn't our party received nothing but shit for decades about harboring or encouraging rampant teen sex? I think we've earned our eye-rolling at this situation.

Want more eye-rolling? Here, as predicted just paragraphs ago:

Most staunch Republicans in St. Paul, hearing the news, tried to accentuate the positive: Palin's daughter is keeping the baby and getting married, a plus - the embodiment of family values, they said.

"I'm not a feminist, never have been, and I opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it was bad law," said Jo Ellen Allen, a delegate from Newport Beach. "But women ought to be applauding her ... this happens to the best of families."

"As a delegate, and as a woman, I respect them even more now,' said Miryam Mora, 26, a GOP delegate from Los Angeles, whose reaction mirrored many others' inside Xcel Energy Center. "It's a family with real issues and real problems ... but it's an amazing family."
OHMYGODAREYOUF-INGKIDDINGME?

Seriously, y'all, how is this a pro-life/pro-choice issue? The options here aren't abort or birth, they're get pregnant or don't get pregnant. Shit happens in every family. That Bristol had sex doesn't make her evil, less worthy as a person, bad, or wrong. But it does raise good questions about the virtues of whatever sex-ed she was provided. Maybe a bit about her parenting (though again, save the comments about how this happens in great, involved families - I know it does, but then again, it also doesn't). But to let this become a pro-life flag-wave-athon is stupid and moves the debate nine-months forward in time from where it should focus.

No comments: