Posted on 02/17/2009 2:28:27 PM PST by SeekAndFind
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Bristol Palin loves motherhood, but the teenage daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she's not getting much sleep these days.
Bristol Palin says in a two-part interview on Fox News Channel's "On the Record" that she wishes her pregnancy had "happened in, like, 10 years so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared and have my own house and stuff."
Palin goes on to say that son Tripp, born Dec. 27, brings her so much joy, she doesn't regret having him at all. She's engaged to the baby's father, Levi Johnston.
The governor also made an appearance in the interview, which took place Sunday in Fairbanks.
Part one of the interview aired Monday night and the second part was scheduled to air Tuesday night.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Making excuses is not the same as fixing problem. And the problem is not a lack of perfection as much as a lack of moral restraint.
Have you read this thread? lol.
The marriage is THE socially sanctioned ritual of family commitment; a couple who haven’t undertaken it are not committed to each other in a way that society has traditionally considered necessary for the best upbringing of children—that’s why illegitimacy is a social handicap.
Bristol and Levi have put off any serious thought of marriage for years down the road—meaning, we can only conclude, that, right now, they’re not willing to make that commitment.
I don’t know why this isn’t getting through to you, but I do NOT believe that some sort of sham shotgun wedding is the answer. I DO believe that the child deserves parents willing to commit to the child and each other from day one. If they aren’t there yet, then they’re not the best parents for that child.
Maybe one day, but, then again, maybe not.
I don’t believe state intervention is prudent in their case, because, as many have been at pains to point out, the Palin family, at least of the two, is functional enough to provide for most of the needs of the child.
It’s not an imperfection—that would be preferring, say watching television to charity work.
It’s immorality, and too many people can’t seem to admit it.
Fornication is acceptable in Penn.? I didn’t know.
You know nothing about me if you think I make excuses.
Anyway, you’re right. Making excuses isn’t the same as fixing the problem or even identifying the problem.
We’re gonna have to disagree on the “moral restraint” thing. Most parents teach their kids. And sometimes those kids make their own choices/mistakes. I had an aunt in the 1930s who had sex before marriage. It’s not anything new. It was a scandal back then. It was a scandal, maybe less so, in my family when back in the late 70s another teen had pre marital sex and got pregnant. She got caught.
It happens. It’s not something we want to encourage, but it happens and it has always happened. To pretend otherwise is just silly.
“Do you, for instance, seriously believe that Palin can any longer stand as a credible advocate for abstinence-based sex education—never mind abstinence-only?”
“Yes. Jesus hasn’t come back so regular human beings are what we have to choose from.”
Well, in an environment in which tax frauds can be Secretary of the Treasury, maybe you’re correct.
I suspect though, that you have no serious commitment to the issue or you wouldn’t make such a ridiculous assertion so lightly. Palin’s first speech on abstinence will be ridiculed for weeks, and, I predict, be her last. This isn’t prophesy, this is cold, hard fact, and anyone who denies it simply isn’t arguing honestly.
Thats one ping list I don't want to be on!
First: I’m not aware that Bristol—and certainly not Levi—have declared that the pregnancy was a mistake. They say the timing was less than ideal, but simply draw a blank at any suggestion of the immorality of premarital sex.
Second: Bristol says they have put the marriage off in order to focus on their educations and careers. Trying to pin the blame for their refusal to marry on the child is unsupportable. Are you saying that they’re waiting for the baby to be ringbearer or something?
The fact that, right now, Bristol and Levi don’t look likely to be dependants of the state doesn’t make the situation morally neutral, and certainly doesn’t remove the issue of illegitimacy from sociological or political analysis, especially insofar as it has so completely infected our ruling classes that raising the issue itself provokes such furor.
We may have a sleeper on our hands.
That’s exactly right!!
I was just responding to the narrowminded simpletons and their reponses interjected with some facts of what I see going on on a day to day basis vis a vis my business.
Smart, conservative, family values oriented folk would NEVER think of letting taxpayers raise their children. That’s why the family structure is so important now. And why losing sight of that is so wrong, period!!!
No one’s asking for perfection.
What we object to is, among other things, Bristol’s implication that premarital sex isn’t even a problem, as long as you, or someone, can afford to pay to the bills.
Sarah Palin’s involvement in this is really tangential, only really relevant insofar as her mother was Bristol’s stepping stone to public figure status, which she, by agreeing to the interview, apparently seems to want.
So a morally ignorant teenager has made a statement damaging to social conservatism, not just in its own right, but for what people WILL conclude it says about Sarah Palin’s commitment or competence on these issues, and people here are upset with those who object to the situation?
It’s not Palin Derangement Syndrome that’s the problem here, it’s Palin Sanctification Syndrome, which, evidently extends beyond Sarah to all her family requiring that we not point out her daughter’s moral inanity and irresponsibility.
I agree. The Palin’s seem to be a solid family first bunch. They take responsibility which isn’t the same thing as being error free. I also don’t see any good reason to hold Sarah Palin responsible for her daughter’s decisions in the context of Sarah’s political career. As I pointed out before, without response, Ronald Reagan had a lot more personal baggage than she does. If he couldn’t cut the mustard today what are we going to get?
I will be waiting for the defense of unmarried teenage mothers in Detroit, or South LA, who live with their mothers (often unmarried themselves) and have their extended families help them with their children.
You need to let it go.
You're the one who said you wouldn't support her if she were perfect. That it would mean she's an alien being. So don't talk to me about ridiculous assertions.
I agree.
We could discuss this issue (parents not parenting their kids) because it happens. However, teens do make mistakes in the “best” of families.
Heh. Reagan did have more baggage. And that was back in the late 70s early 80s.
As we know, Reagan was one of the best Presidents we’ve had.
Please do me the favour of not putting words in my mouth.
I said I would not support her if she declared herself completely without power or influence over her minor daughter.
The canards about “demanding perfection” were introduced by the defenders of the moral neutrality of premarital sex.
If the father of the child also is playing a part daily in the family as Levi is and they are finishing their education and will be working, if those same families you mention are on this same track, but the families you mention usually arn’t and you know this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.