I have nothing to rebut for in the grand scheme of things you are right to the extent of the laws of morality and God. You have made that well know to the point of redundancy however.
It is the mercy, grace and sense of proportion I find lacking.
All I have to be graceful with is Bristol’s chirp that abstinence isn’t realistic, and that her love for Tripp is an effective substitute for a married father and mother.
This site is full of people swimming in great pools of grace and forgiveness for Bristol; I’m the one who has take the punchbowl away from the party and remind everyone else that what she did was objectively immoral, not just “a mistake,” and that what she’s doing now is still putting her own sentiments ahead of the child’s right to married and committed parents.
Half the people who have attacked me here seem really to believe that pre-marital sex and single parenthood are unobjectionable if the family is wealthy enough to prevent the children from becoming burdens to the state. This is crass utilitarianism and the opposite of traditional morality.