Skip to comments.Abstinence is unrealistic, says the daughter of Sarah Palin
Posted on 02/17/2009 6:27:05 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Abstinence is unrealistic, says the daughter of Sarah Palin
From correspondents in Los Angeles
February 18, 2009 11:09am
THE daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has spoken out against teenage pregnancy, but says her famous mother's advocacy of abstinence is unrealistic.
Unmarried Bristol Palin's pregnancy became a US presidential election campaign talking point last year after her mother was announced as John McCain's running mate.
Bristol, 18, later gave birth to a baby boy in December.
Speaking about the birth of Tripp to Fox News, Bristol Palin said she now hoped to become an advocate against teen pregnancy.
"Everyone should wait 10 years," Bristol said.
"I hope people learn from my story - It's so much easier if you're married, have a house and career. It's not a situation you want to strive for."
"I'd love to be an advocate to prevent teen pregnancy. Kids should just wait. It's not glamorous at all," she added.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Well said and thank you for saying it.
My 17 YO Wasilla residing daughter has no trouble with abstinence, and her friends do just fine with that practice also.
We expect that from her, and she’s respected that view. If she didn’t, or something came up (we are talking teenagers here) alternate methods are available in abundance. Gnomeling and I did have a talk after Bristol turned up pregnant, and I just verifed that a trip to the school nurse will yield condoms. Failing that, there is a “hospitality bowl” in the restroom at the Public Health facility.
Gnomeling and Rush both come to the same conclusion-abstinence does work 100% of the time. It’s when you don’t practice it correctly that the problems start.
And in many families, family takes care of family, you know, like it was before welfare and government help. It would be a cold day in hell before I’d allow my blood to be given away to strangers. Some of these posts act like it’s the duty of unwed mothers to provide babies for those who can’t have their own. How sick is that?
I have no problem with adoption as long as the birth parents choose to give up their baby for adoption. A couple unable to have their own biological kids have no right/entitlement to another’s child.
And yet, since the legalization of birth control and abortion, the number of children born out of wedlock has sky rocketed, so that clearly isn't the answer in 2009 (or ever),either.
Thus, until the sexual revolution reverses, the only message to give children is the moral message: abstinence. Maybe if we say it loud, and long and frequently, it will be heard and followed by greater numbers of young people.
Time was, when 17-year-old “girls” were women, with husbands, homes, children - and more maturity and responsibility than to be whiling away their young lives at the mall. And “boys” were young men, with skills and trades with which to provide for their wives and families, not stuck in some “school” and herded from class to useless class.
Our modern world concocted this “adolescence” thing out of thin air, thereby artificially prolonging childhood and postponing adulthood well into the 20s (and beyond, for some folks!)
Abstinence ought not to be such a burden on young adults. God (or Nature, if you wish) provided for us a healthy, wholesome, legitimate and honorable outlet for our sexual desires. It’s called marriage, and it doesn’t need to be postponed like we do.
No problem. In my family adoption would have been unheard of unless it was to someone in our family. We were taught to take care of our own & it still is that way in my mind. I love children & took in 2 boys who aren’t mine but they are now. They are now in their 20’s and did just fine. It was a zoo for awhile with four boys & one girl but when I look back I find many wonderful & funny memories.
If families want to care for these children, it is certainly their business. But it is not my duty or my business or my responsibility or that of any taxpayer, to be forced into paying to raise, and feed and clothe these children, many of whom are brought into the world for that very purpose (to get mommy some free cash), also sickening, and in some cases, obscene.
Furthermore, today's situation is so bizarre, that young single motherhood, is becoming both equal in number and stature to married couple parenthood. As if one of those choices is as good as the other...it isn't.
The two best options, in most cases are to either get married and raise the child, or give the child up for adoption.
Why? If Twink & I are able & willing to raise our grandchild why should we let some stranger raise our blood? Not all adoptive parents are good parents. Many are wonderful but I remember a case in NJ where a adoptive mother killed her 2 sons because she didn't really want them, her husband did. It was many years ago but I remember thinking how sad it was.
I grew up in a family with all boys, I was the baby, youngest and a girl. Plus, we had other family members living with us. It was crowded for sure.
We were also taught to take care of our own. It’s a given.
I am sure that it is difficult, both being adopted, and trying to adopt a child. The hassle to adopt from Russia or other countries is a pain, and I am sure that it has been tough on your daughter.
All this being said, you seem to be confusing what is best for the child, with what is best for those trying to adopt. There are actually plenty of infants here in the US to adopt, but they are not white. It is not the responsibility of Bristol Palin, or other teenage moms, to give up their babies, so that there are babies in the US to adopt. Adoption is a great option for single mothers, who don’t feel that they can provide for their babies. It is not their responsibility, nor is it always the best choice. There are plenty of lousy adoptive parents out there.
Bristol’s baby appears to be loved and cared for by a large, extended family. They are not poor, and have plenty of resources to care for the baby. Most importantly, she loves this baby, and has sacrificed a lot to keep him. They made a mistake, and are trying to do the right thing. They shouldn’t have to give up the baby they love.
If you listen to Greta’s interview, Sarah herself says abstinence is naive.
Everybody is bashing Bristol but nobody is commenting on Sarah’s views.
“But it is not my duty or my business or my responsibility or that of any taxpayer, to be forced into paying to raise, and feed and clothe these children, many of whom are brought into the world for that very purpose (to get mommy some free cash), also sickening, and in some cases, obscene.”
“Furthermore, today’s situation is so bizarre, that young single motherhood, is becoming both equal in number and stature to married couple parenthood. As if one of those choices is as good as the other...it isn’t.”
Again, I agree. Single motherhood is becoming equal or held up as some standard that’s ok. It’s not ok. And fathers have no say whatsoever.
I disagree about the adoption part. The best scenario is of course two married parents. If that isn’t happening, and that’s something that happens, the bio family should raise the kid.
Adoption is good option, in some cases. It’s certainly not the best option or only option. And, just because there are many couples unable to have their own kids, it doesn’t entitle them to other people’s kids.
Thank you for your post. Well said. I would have no problem adopting a mixed race child or an older child. The 2 boys I raised were 7 & 13 when I got them & abused. I can’t imagine life without them. There are many older children that are waiting for parents & it is shame only babies seem to be wanted.
I'm not sure I agree. If the young people involved are basically responsible kids who screwed up but are willing to try to be good parents with the help of their parents, I do agree.
But if it's slacker mom and loser dad wandering their way through life...as good a grandma as I may be, I'm not going to make up for them. To decide that a child is going to have to deal with having two idiots for parents because the child is MY blood and I insist on keeping him/her, well, I think sometimes the kid is well rid of his/her parents.
The concept behind abstinence is pretty serious - and even if someone doesn’t see the point (which tells me a lot about their heart), it is the only foolproof method of preventing pregnancy. Also a pretty darned good way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
But considering that keeping oneself sexually “pure” until marriage is more than just a nice or fanciful thought. It really is a gift to your future spouse and “help-mate”.
And just because someone does not wait until marriage does not make them a “bad person”, nor does it necessarily reflect bad parenting. But parenting can impact a young person’s decisions - including their decision regarding pre-marital sex.
I have a great deal of respect for anyone - male or female - who has the intestinal fortitude and willpower (and usually the spiritual strength) to abstain until married. And the concept is not unreasonable.
And I probably have a lot more in common with your husband than I would like to admit...
But who is to decide that? Who should decide if they are responsible? Or good parents?
If everyone lived according to my rules, we’d all be better off. I’m just not willing to let the government or anyone else decide what’s the best way.
I’d like to tell my niece’s parents that their kid is a train wreck and needs major help. For family harmony, I keep my mouth shut and just deal with it when they drop her off on some weekends. Would she have been better off being adopted years ago? Not in my opinion. For the record, her mother wasn’t married and isn’t married to her father. Her mother isn’t a blood relative. This kid has major problems but she has our family and her mother’s family. Our family is the step family. If nothing else, the kid knows she’s loved and has family who loves her.
“And I probably have a lot more in common with your husband than I would like to admit...” And yet, my husband is the best person I know.
I was a virgin when I got married. I dated tons, social butterfly, etc. As a teen, what was the point? Didnt’ want to get pregnant, didn’t want to disappoint my mother. One just didn’t have sex before marriage.
My husband now has 4 daughters. Poetic justice maybe ;) His take is always “teen boys are bad, they want sex all the time no matter what they say, don’t have sex” Then they get the other side from me, boys aren’t bad, no one is going to convince you to do anything you don’t want to do, etc.
The concept isn’t unreasonable per se. But for me, way back, I abstained because it was huge. I wasn’t ready for all it entailed. Then when I met my husband in college, it was more difficult. And very difficult to abstain.
The operative words in my statement. : )
Of course, it should be the people involved who decide that. No one here has mentioned any government involvement.
Would she have been better off being adopted years ago? Not in my opinion.
All you say about the mother is that she didn't marry the father. Is she a mature, loving and caring parent? You say the kid has problems. Are they because of her family?
I just have a really hard time saddling innocent babies with parents who are selfish morons. Even if I am caring for them full-time, the people who are supposed to love them the most are still idiots. Adoption is a risk because you don't know what you're going to get, but I think a lot of times it can be a risk worth taking.