McCain chose a VP

[boedicca]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Yes, and that includes good morals for conservatives and their offspring. These include good morals on the issues of sexuality. If the conservatives make sexuality a moral subject, then there is no way to argue that they can suddenly exclude sexual reproduction from morality.

Conservatives do not deny that sex is a normal and healthy part of life. A teenager having sex is not the end of the world. It is also a private matter. Considering how the Left argued that Clinton getting blow jobs from a subordinate employee while on company time was a Private Matter, a teenager's private life should certainly be off limits.

The Palins appear to be handling their daughter's situation with compassionate responsibility, although it is none of our business.

I can see how the condemnation of not attaining these goals / ideals has been forthcoming in this case. Need I cite just about every other case to show that the response to Sarah Palin's case is the exception in conservative circles, rather than the rule?

Yes, please do. I don't see it as being an exception from my years of observation.

I have no issue with the choice Bristol made, I have an issue with the extremely hypocritical praise for someone who failed to live up to the standards, by the same people who purport to be believers in these standards. Do you consider the positions Quayle and Coburn had on these issues as atypical for conservatives?? I am sure they were full of praise for teens getting pregnant out of wedlock and their parents.

You are sorely misinterpreting the situation. Conservatives are not applauding that she got pregnant out of wedlock. They are respecting the grace, compassion, and responsibility displayed by her and her family under difficult circumstances (made even moreso by the tabloidlike attacks by the MSM).

I don't pay attention to Quayle and have no idea who Coburn is, so you'll have to forgive me for not responding to the question.

Mind you, if they actually were consistent in praising people who try to make the best of a bad situation, I would have no issues with that. Sadly, as indicated before, the voting records, and public statements of conservative leaders give no credibility to such an interpretation.

I call shenanigans. You're going to have to provide some proof for this claim.

If anything, the record of The Dems as being For Women, which has been very sullied since the Clinton Administration, is even more tarnished now. They are punishing Palin and her daughter for exercising their right to Choice.

"How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Does anything positive ever come from that?"

Well, Obama's mentor who sexually abused a 13 year old girl thinks it is.

Just to quote two well known conservatives, that do not belong to a loony fringe, and are die hard supporters of Ms. Palin now:
"Women have babies and men provide the support. If you don't
like the way we're made you've got to take it up with God."
Guess who does not want to be reminded of that quote.

That's biology, bub. And as far as I know, the only Man to have a baby is the one who was a woman and kept her female gonads after her sex change operation. Studies all show that children who have supportive Dads do better in life on average than ones who don't.

"But what about our career woman who already "gave at the office," then came home to this chaos? Any unexpected crisis or even a minor irritant can set off a torrent of emotion. There is no reserve on which to draw. In short, the parents of adolescents should save some energy with which to cope with aggravation!"
And guess who does not want to be reminded of that particular quote.

What is wrong with balance? This same principle can apply to any human being. If an individual puts all of his or her energy into one aspect of life, there is little left for the rest. This quote can apply equally to workaholic dads.

[CCC]

I want to ask, is it OK to set high standards, or standards at all? Or should parents not set any kinds of standards and let children run amok?

Isn't it unreasonable to keep kids in a cage until they are 21 to prevent them from getting in trouble?

What parents can do is set up standards for children to follow. But since we don't live in a vacuum, children are subject to temptations and choices when they're not under the umbrella and security of mommy and daddy. We can hope the children remain perfect and will make right decisions. We can plant seeds of wisdom and truth into them. They will likely fail to some extent, which is the nature of imperfect human beings. Even in the event of a failure, a mature child can own up to the mistake and take responsibility for the mistake. And I hesitate to call some things a "mistake" when they can turn into wonderful opportunities and blessings. Sometimes good can come out of a bad situation. Sometimes lessons have to be learned the hard way. Sometimes people can use these lessons to help and guide others. Such is the value of wisdom.

I believe setting the bar high is not unreasonable. When you set the bar low, expect low results. No limits quickly turn into bad and irresponsible behaviour. Low standards can make a child turn into somebody unemployable, unlikable, and unfit to survive in a complex world. Then that child will really be a burden on society.

Failure is not a parent setting high standards; failure is setting no standards. Do not judge a parent for setting standards if a child misses the mark. You should be thankful for the strong family units that do. Much of the problems of poverty and social misbehaviour is typically from the lack of standards.

Hypocrisy is only reserved for those who say and profess to believe one thing and do the opposite. That criterion has not been met here.


(perhaps this could be a thread on its own)

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Teen sex rates in the Western world are roughly the same. Teen pregnancy rates are 5-7 times higher in the US than in say Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands. More pregnancies result in more abortions, as the teen abortion rate is roughly the same over the years. Thus by increasing teen pregnancies by means of lack of prevention, you are increasing abortions. You are also increasing expenditure indirectly (income support, health support, loss of higher income labour potential).

After several false starts, I'm gonna try and answer this post. First, you stated that abstinence only education was a complete failure. I asked for a link that proved this, not a lesson on economics.

Research cannot even get federal support, because that would be unlawful. Remember Ms. Elders research on the matter?

Sigh....where do you get this stuff? First, this would be news to me, second each of the fifty states can do whatever it is they want. They neither require federal permission, nor need federal funds.

I won't comment on the health effects on the baby of travelling extensively when 8 months pregnant.

Well, I'm sorry. Perhaps World Famous OB/GYN, Dr. Vautrin would like to explain how Sarah Palin was wrong in traveling to Texas and then home again while pregnant.

The not living part is simply being part of the moral breakdown as noted by Quayle, Coburn and others. Although the latter even managed to blame homosexuals for teen pregnancies.

Who? Links? What? Huh?

And what standard is Sarah Palin NOT living up to????

By conservative values (see the likes of Quayle, Coburn) she has failed her children. But suddenly having get pregnant while unmarried in your teens is the best thing that could happen while promoting family values. [/quote]

Again.....what? Are you answering a question, or making an accusation? I suggest you keep it simple, and short. I'll assume you're accusing Sarah Palin of 'doing something'....although I'm not sure what she's guilty of doing. Try including a link, or something.