Who's the party of diversity again??

[sirs]

The transparent hypocrisy currently being perpetrated by the left is really astounding.  Yes, conservatives in general don't approve of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.  Yes, conservatives in general don't approve of teenagers getting pregnant.  I'd suspect MOST mature adults aren't real happy with either, especially the parents.  The difference is, while the right can be critical of such acts, doesn't equate to it being some massively voodoo taboo to the point said person should be excommunicated from society.  While the right generally supports stay at home mom's (or Dads) they embrace all Moms

The even more striking difference is that the left supposedly supports women to be all they can be, to be supported despite whatever negative circumstances are layed at their feet, to be applauded when they've attained substantial success in either the private or public sector..........UNLESS of course you're a conservative woman, with traditional values.  Then you're to be vilified and told to stay home and bake cookies apparently.

The liberal desperation meter is coming to a boil

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes, conservatives in general don't approve of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.  Yes, conservatives in general don't approve of teenagers getting pregnant.  I'd suspect MOST mature adults aren't real happy with either, especially the parents.  The difference is, while the right can be critical of such acts, doesn't equate to it being some massively voodoo taboo to the point said person should be excommunicated from society.>>

Try to keep it honest, sirs.  Excommunication from society was never up for discussion. 

The problem is with conservatives who try to stick their noses into other folks' business in order to "protect the family," or "preserve traditional values."  They try to give the force of law to their own values, the better to impose them by force on folks who don't share them.  Thus a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, which the Courts have determined may be a Constitutionally given right; efforts to ban sex ed and condom distribution from the high schools; allowing public schools to teach abstinence but not safe sex; and dozens of other busybody interferences with private lives.

Well, you would think that a party so convinced of its own values that it is willing to force them down everyone's throat by force of law, would not only talk the talk but walk the walk.  If their principles are so wonderful and so superior, surely to God their lives would reflect that, would they not?

Alas, in fact, we have as leaders of the "family values" Party, the lying, cheating philanderer and betrayer, John Insane and his beauty-pageant runner-up running mate, who's equally adept at telling others how to run their private lives but correspondingly inept at the world's most important job, parenting.  Supported by the Moral Majority and the Focus on the Family crowd to be sure, even though the failure of the "leaders" to focus on their own families is patently obvious.  By contrast, we happen to have alternative leaders available to take your vote, Michelle and Barak, two people who really DO "focus on the family," and demonstrate what a loving marriage is all about.  Which pair will the Focus on the Family crowd really vote for?  Do you need to ask?  Can you say "hypocrites?"

[BT]

Try to keep it honest, plane. 

Umm that would be sirs.

Just to be clear are you saying that parents who have unwed pregnant daughters are now to be considered unfit?

Should the state remove any remaining children from the home and immediately place them in foster care?

It's one thing to preach the ideal, it's another to deal with the real. As far as i can see, the Palins have done that.

[Brassmask]

I'm just glad to see this total embrace of unwed mothers.

[BT]

I'm just glad to see this total embrace of unwed mothers.

Been there for quite a while.

What is advocated after the discovery of the unwed pregnancy seems to be the point of divergence.

[Michael Tee]

<<Just to be clear are you saying that parents who have unwed pregnant daughters are now to be considered unfit?>>

God-damn right.  My wife and I raised two lovely daughters and neither one of them became an unwed teenage mother.  None of our friends' daughters did, either.  None of our kids' friends did either.  Despite that ludicrous Thornburgh article about "real life" and "small-town values," this is NOT an everyday or "normal" occurrence and it's ludicrous to paint it as such.  It's a fucking tragedy and a challenge to be surmounted.  This is a pretty egregious falling short in the standards department, in the moral guidance department, in the parent-child communication department and in the parenting department generally.

<<Should the state remove any remaining children from the home and immediately place them in foster care?>>

That'd depend on a lot of factors.  Are other kids at risk?  That'd be the primary question.  Did Palin resist her daughter's attempts to get birth-control devices or influence her against them?  Did she give the kid any guidance at all as she was growing up?  What specifically did she teach her in terms of sex ed?  You're asking a question that depends on an assessment of the whole of the parenting failure that led to this, also on whether her other kids are or are not already past the point of no return, where the failures of parental guidance in character formation can no longer be reversed.

<<It's one thing to preach the ideal, it's another to deal with the real. As far as i can see, the Palins have done that.>>

Well, preaching the ideal is a small part of it.  In truth, preaching is half the equation, but really it's more walking the walk than it is talking the talk.  What did Palin demonstrate to the kids in the course of her life?  And also, just what WAS she preaching?  Religious parents, particularly sexually repressive ones, can fuck the kids up for life and nobody knows at this point what it was that Palin tried to instil in her children. 

Dealing with the real, IMHO, in this instance would have meant abortion, if it could be done without endangering the mother's present or future health and reproductive faculties.  Failure to do so indicates graphic disregard for her own child's welfare in the pursuit of ideological and/or political gains.

[sirs]

Or, it could be the embracing of an innocent life.  I'll go with the latter.

BTW, how old was Obama's mother again, when he was conceived?

[Brassmask]

Or, it could be the embracing of an innocent life.  I'll go with the latter.

BTW, how old was Obama's mother again, when he was conceived?

Pfft.

Nobody's knocking unwed or young mothers.  That's what you're trying to spin it into.  The reality is that forever and a day, it has been the stock of conservatives to be all abstinence only and kids should wait and so forth.

[sirs]

Or, it could be the embracing of an innocent life.  I'll go with the latter.  BTW, how old was Obama's mother again, when he was conceived?

Pfft.  Nobody's knocking unwed or young mothers.

LOL...that's all the left is currently doing right now.  It's ok though, because it's a conservative republican and her child getting "knocked"

The reality is that forever and a day, it has been the stock of conservatives to be all abstinence only and kids should wait and so forth.

Yea.......................and??  Supporting a moral ideal isn't the same as mandating it, outside of what marriage should be defined as.  That's the Left's bread & butter

[Brassmask]

Yea.......................and??  Supporting a moral ideal isn't the same as mandating it, outside of what marriage should be defined as.  That's the Left's bread & butter

So mandating what marriage is is ok?

[hnumpah]

Supporting a moral ideal isn't the same as mandating it...

Yet some would mandate that no form of birth control other than abstinence be taught in schools ...

Perhaps if the young Ms Palin had had more information about alternatives, there wouldn't be one more child on the way to being born out of wedlock.

[sirs]

Supporting a moral ideal isn't the same as mandating it...

Yet some would mandate that no form of birth control other than abstinence be taught in schools ...

I woudn't be one of those "some", H

Perhaps if the young Ms Palin had had more information about alternatives, there wouldn't be one more child on the way to being born out of wedlock.

Perhaps........and perhaps not

Yea.......................and??  Supporting a moral ideal isn't the same as mandating it, outside of what marriage should be defined as.  That's the Left's bread & butter

So mandating what marriage is is ok?

Yes.  And allowing anyone from the same gender to engage in their own marriage-like ceremony, is also having more support.  Just don't call it "marriage" 

[hnumpah]

I woudn't be one of those "some", H

Didn't mention any names, S. No need to get all defensive and lend support to the old saying, 'The guilty dog always barks first'.

[BT]

There seems to be the assumption that Palin is against birth control . She isn't.

[sirs]

I wouldn't be one of those "some", H

Didn't mention any names, S. No need to get all defensive and lend support to the old saying, 'The guilty dog always barks first'.

Ahh, apologies then.  Responding to my post, made the impression it was a response to my post