It is a no-brainer on at least one of the questions - the evangelicals not only respect her decision to keep the baby, they will celebrate the decision.  The pregnant mother is the only true sacred piece of modern America, and is thus always to be cherished as far as the fundy right is concerned.  

Of course, to these very same evangelicals, once the baby is born, both baby and mother are no longer their concern.

kgrant1054 -- to quote my congressman, Barney Frank, "For Republicans, the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth."

Actually, to a lot of working-class evangelicals, their concern with sexuality is actually a result of the perceived erosion of sexual constraints.  I have a fair number of rural friends and relatives, and teen pregnancies and shotgun weddings have been common in rural society for a long time [A cousin of mine married at age 11--this was before I was born sixty years ago, but whatever].  They don't want this stuff to happen, but I've never known anyone--parent or child--rejected because of it.  It's only those looking in on this world from the outside who cluck-cluck about the contradictions.  So, yes, Obama was classy.  We need to move on from this stuff.

Obama went on: "I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us. I hope I'm as clear as we can be. We don't go after people's families. Our people were not involved in any way. And if I thought anyone in my campaign they'd be fired."

OK kids, the GOP candidate for Vice President and her family will serve as an example. I have no control over that and we only need to accept the facts that are admitted to open a discussion. This should remind our country of some scary facts.

See, when I was a teenager in the '70's getting pregnant or a pesky disease was about the worst consequence of unprotected sex. But now? Every time someone takes those risks there's a chance they'll contract a disease that may kill. A family can ask for a pledge of chastity and that's their business. But if you wish to follow their example you can't ignore the consequence aren't limited to a child bringing another child into the world.

This isn't about cute babies. The same cavalier attitude that can result in an unplanned teen pregnancy is not something which can be condoned. Lives, the future of our young and the national health are everyone's business. We need not pry into a family's personal life to obtain a lesson. When a famous person or national figure is the victim of a disease or disability it allows the nation to rally and focus in a positive manner. The same miracle which allowed this child to be a mother is also the ruin of too many lives. We ignore and deny that at our peril.

This is no longer a secret. Let us put aside any partisan or moral axes and admit an unmarried 17 year old who is still in school and the father cannot be championed. There is no gray area here and we must decide if the standard is to approve of their behavior or deplore it.

What is the message we wish to send our young? We can't afford to be misunderstood and keeping quiet is no way to enlighten.

"Of course, to these very same evangelicals, once the baby is born, both baby and mother are no longer their concern."

BINGO!

I have a customized bumper sticker that reads, "GOP: Save a Fetus, Starve a Low-Income Baby"

I must say that was a classy comment by Obama.

Good for him.

Ironically, Mrs. Pallin and the campaign have asked the press and the public to respect her teen daughter's "privacy".  I say ironic because the underlying premise of the anti-choice movement is that pregancy is not a private matter.  It is, rather, a very public matter into which the state should intrude deeply.  

I am all for granting her poor daughter privacy.  I just wish that Sarah Pallin respected the privacy of all women, not just the daughters of Alaskan politicians.

While I understand Obama's empathy in this matter, it raises significant public policy issues.  For example, what is Pallin's position on contraception?  Does she oppose the distribution of condoms in school sex ed programs?  What about HIV/AIDS prevention programs.  At very least this situation should give her a new perspective on the right to privacy protected by Roe v. Wade.

"I wonder if this country is more forgiving of a teen pregnancy than we might suspect."

Michael, you need to get out more.

What else could Obama say?  After all, Hunter Biden's wife was 8 months pregnant on her wedding day.  He would be subject to the same sort of (irrelevant) questions.

I wonder if (and if, then how) Rick Davis can turn Obama's statement against him? McCain's team is hair trigger and mostly effective in a potshot way. Have they been practicing for months??

"kgrant1054 -- to quote my congressman, Barney Frank, "For Republicans, the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.""

Now there's a man with a deep understanding of other points of view.

"Let us put aside any partisan or moral axes and admit an unmarried 17 year old who is still in school and the father cannot be championed. There is no gray area here and we must decide if the standard is to approve of their behavior or deplore it."

That's the royal, majestic, Victorian, and New Yorker "we", right?  At least I hope you're not expecting others to join you in your sniffiness.

Right to PRIVACY? Wow.

Unfortunately, concrete policy questions rather than tittilating gossip are going to be asked ala dbhuey0's excellent post, and they will be fair no matter what the situation.  If something isn't asked about this in one of the debates, it would be a huge loss for all of us.

What, besides standad boilerplate written by Dobson, are Pallin's views on dbhuey0's list regarding the sexual health of this nation?  Does she have any thought in her head but acceptable boilerplate to the religious right?  I'm honestly willing to listen, but I would like her to answer this.

But - putting her daughter in the middle of this as a pinada was HER decision.  Where was Dad?  My parents would eat glass first, as would I.  Jesus Christ himself could offer me eternal riches, slim thighs forever and safety and happiness for anyone I ever loved and I'd still say - forGET it!

What sort of woman would do this to her 17 year old country girl daughter?  It's ghoulish.  I know this part technically has nothing to do with anything (although I'm not so sold on that yet) and blah blah blah, but good God how sad for that girl!

This got me to thinking--wouldn't it serve to boost polling percentages if one of the candidates (or Veep candidates) timed the pregnancy and ensuing labor of the family pet for the Tuesday four weeks before Election Day?  Puppies and babies are usually good PR.

This got me to thinking--wouldn't it serve to boost polling percentages if one of the candidates (or Veep candidates) timed the pregnancy and ensuing labor of the family pet for the Tuesday four weeks before Election Day?  Puppies and babies are usually good PR.

Teen age pregnancies are so common in all walks of life that it is a non issue.  Let me the first to ask a question which may be sexist or other wise out of bounds:  Is Sarah still able to conceive?  Is she "preventing"? Do we want a president on maternity leave?

dhuey0 wrote, "Ironically, Mrs. Pallin and the campaign have asked the press and the public to respect her teen daughter's "privacy".  I say ironic because the underlying premise of the anti-choice movement is that pregancy is not a private matter.  It is, rather, a very public matter into which the state should intrude deeply."

Yes, the request by Obama and Palin meet the definition of irony but their is the deeper contradiction: Mrs. Palin does not support a woman's constitutional right to privacy and she will be forced to juggle that as she is asking for us to apply a double standard for her and her family. A woman's right to privacy fits Obama's position to respect the right. And, Barack can sharpen his focus on the value of that right without speaking of her daughter. Plus, this opens a larger can o' worms regarding a woman's rights that Hillary (and Democrats) have held for decades. Winning over progressive females and independent voters might be less easy as Palin becomes less than a cut-out that meets a gender type.

Policy is always more complicated than politics and slogans. I'm glad that the country may be forced to examine the same details Democrats consider even when they realize their position can be reduced by irrational claims. Real people and real lives are the subjects of laws which need to pass a higher test than a person's denominational code.

As usual, Wandreycer1 hiits the nail on the head.   Privacy?  It was John McCain who paraded  the Palin family like so many campaign  floats.   If you're going to make a woman's parenting skills, her time in the PTA, the home schooling, the hockey-mom, one of the central qualifications of being Vice President, then why is the family "off limits"?  As a gay man and veteran,  I scream in absolute frustration at the hypocrisy of these people.  I have to be lectured on morality be this Party of rest room Romeos?  of two timers? Twice, three times married?  The GOP has turned "family values", moraility, sex, choice, religion, patriotism, military service  into clubs with which to beat progressives over the head.   These are the people who can rally behind draft dodgers and turn Democratic combat vets into Osama Bin Laden.  Who can call the teenage daughter of a Democratic  President  of the United States "The White House Dog" and accuse his First Lady of being a gun moll.  Who can rob Bill Clinton of his Presidency over a matter of privacy - the charge being led by cads such as Bob Barr, Bob Livingston, and Henry "youthful indiscretion" Hyde.  And then they ask for "privacy and understanding"  Eff em.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy should have no effect on the election, except to call into question the extent to which Gov. Palin's parenting skills are limited or constrained by political ideology.

All right, if Ms. Palin did cover for her sixteen year old daughter's pregnancy, what magnitude of sin is it?  Since it made possible a birth instead of an abortion, it's only going to help the GOP ticket with their base.  Since Democrats and urban secularists don't believe in sexual sin, how much noise could be made about it?

And if the mud starts slinging, it just brings back to the suface, "Chicago Machine Politician," "Friend of Convicted Felon & Influence Buyer, Revko," "Protege of unrepentant American Terrorists, bill Ayers & Bernadette Dohrn".

The scandal game is hard to play nowadays since all politicians are so naughty.

Meanwhile, going back to the original theory, the daughter in question is pregnant at 17 with a child and is to marry the father.  Either she doesn't learn very fast or she's starting a family of 12.

P.S.  Obama is playing this smarter than his supporters or the media.  He says politicians' families are off bounds.  Especially their children.  And told his people to back off.

ChanRobt:  "The scandal game is hard to play nowadays since all politicians are so naughty."

Not to mention the number of commenters (e.g. ChanRobt) that are so intelectually dishonest.

Just suppose Gov. Palin was an African American Democrat with a seventeen year old unmarried teenage daughter, would the Right still be as understanding?

By the way, I think Palin's family should be off limits, unless of course there's something else much beyond the pale.

Chan, the mud has already been slung.  The "Madrassas" lie propogated by Fox.  The Muslim myth.  The attacks on MIchelle Obama.  Republicans have been playing these Atwater/Rove games for 20 years now.  They can sling lies, and Democrats can't even dig into the truth.  We're supposed to take this crap. "Politicians  families, especially their children are out of bounds. " Yes, after 20 years of hearing about Kitty Dukakis' problems, and Chelsea "The White House Dog" Clinton, and all the murders that Hillary Clinton committed as a partner in the Rose Law firm we liberals are supposed to  scratch our pointy  little heads and stroke our little Lenin-bearded chins and say "Yes, quite, indeed " when Republicans say "out of bounds"

dubya: what's really amazing is that the tactics of the Republicans, and the justifications (especially the protestations by Chan et al) is identical to the tactics Islamist fundamentalists use in Iran everytime a rightwinger or a mullar is caught in a morality scandal.  You know, as long as the "people" fall for it ...

Scrubbyoak, the fact that some slimemongers on the right would absolutely make a big issue out of that in your hypothetical case (I can almost imagine Limbaugh riffing on it) does not make it less reprehensible. Minor children of politicians should simply be off-limits, as you said.

Certainly the pregnancy is embarrassing and coming from the daughter of a social conservative Republican politician, it will raise some eyebrows. But people can figure these things out for themselves, and anyone who harps on it just lowers themselves.

dubyadoubt - standing ovation.

PS Wolfson - you just get better and better, you've been awesome.  I hope you become more of a journalist type, you're great at it.

oops, sorry - wrong thread.

My point to all of you wwas not that the Democrts don't have a right to gin up scandals against the GOP.

My point is that teenage pregnancy is a very retro so of "scandal" in the Peyton Place vein.  It just don't think it has a lotta traction in the present environment.

And the girl's keeping the baby and marrying the boy trumps "illicit pregnancy" with social conservatives you expect to get upset.  And has not power at all with anybody who is not a social conservative.

The only possible "scandal" in this would be hypocrisy, but the threat of Rightist thinking is not pregnant teenager as Jezabel.   This hasn't had much power since the 50s or 60s.

Sorry.

A few thoughts on Sarah Palin and her unmarried, pregnant, 17-year-old daughter.

1. Obama's comment is a masterstroke.

2. Dems need not focus (or comment) on Palin's daughter at all; the MSM (and the general public) will obsess on this out-of-wedlock pregnancy without any partisan instigation whatsoever.  

3. The American public loves a scandal, and the interest in Bristol's pregnancy, fed by the MSN, will be widespread, which will, in turn, encourage the MSN to obsess on this subject endlessly.

4. Evangelicals and social conservatives within the GOP base may look forgivingly upon Sarah Palin and her daugher, as it is expected within such circles that we (as humans) will sin. What is not acceptable is acceptance (or normalization) of sin. If Palin plays this right, the base won't retreat.

5. The immediate problem for the GOP--and the immediate effect of Bristol Palin's pregnancy--is that it changes the (MSM) narrative at the GOP Convention to: what did John McCain know and when did he know it (with regard to knowledge of Palin's daughter's pregnancy and his selection of Palin as VP)?

6. This change in narrative will essentially obscure any message the Republicans try to get through to the voting public during their (hours of free prime-time air time) Convention.

7. The end result  may be the elimination of any anticipated bounce that McCain would have normally recieved in the wake of the RNC, especially with swing voters, as his message will be trumped by the perceived scandal.

This is 100% about McCain's judgement.

I may be a Democrat, but I was raised in a Republican household in Texas, and if I'd knocked up my girlfriend while still in high school my daddy would've kicked the living crap out of me, and I would've deserved it!

Note to you ignorant teens out there: If you have unprotected vaginal intercourse with your mate, then chances are -- get ready for this unheard-of conclusion! -- you have a great chance of a PREGNANCY. What part of this doesn't get through to you blithering idiots?

Let's just face it: There are chauvinistic teen boys who don't want to wear a condom because they've heard that it feels better without one, so they feed their girlfriends this God-wouldn't-approve-of-birth-control malarky just for a few minutes of pleasure, and these equally-idiotic girlfriends buy into this!

And here's something about me: I'm 38 years old and I've never fathered a child despite my quite-high sperm count. And you know why? Because, one, I've never had a girlfriend I've loved to want to have kids with; and two, because I couldn't afford to have a child given my low education and work-pay. People like me are a very, very rare breed, sadly. There was this very beautiful girl I could've dated, but 10 minutes into our initial conversation she went on and on about her big sister having 2 kids and blah, blah, blah. Subtle, huh? I crossed that pony off my path and 4 months later I saw her and she was knocked up like a cheerleader -- and she was still giving me the eye; no doubt because the father of her child didn't have a job to support her, so she became a welfare mom at the age of 19.

In a nutshell, I may be lonely but I can aver that I've lived a responsible life thus far, and I'm proud of that.

And

Mike astutely observes that the lesson of Jamie Lynn Spears may be that the "country is more forgiving

If you stupid democrats are going to pick this up (for instance suggesting that teen preganCY should be fought by going viciously after teen pregnanTS; making a case against Palin's motherhood skills, etc., etc.) you're not only going to make a very poor moral case, you're going to loose a lot of political points.

And, by the way, if you really did believe in privacy, you'd be for it no matter the side of the political spectrum benefiting from it.

This would be laughable if it weren't tragic. Since that sort of hipocritical political opportunists you're showing yourselves to be deserves to loose elections. It is the rest of the world that did not deserve Republican American presidents...

But go on, being irresponsibly and so obviously dumb instead of doing the right thing, which is also the smart thing: IGNORING the whole matter (which Obama himself at least is suggesting you to do).

This is an odd story.  Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin are completely different than the poor, low-income teenage pregnant mother-to-be.  Their decisions were made easier by the fact that they are wealthy.  They don't have to worry about healthcare, food, shelter, etc.  Low-income moms have to worry about this stuff, especially when the Republican philosophy is to make them keep the baby, then tell them that they are on their own.    

I would never suggest that someone abort a baby, but at the same time, these 2 people are not comparable to most teen moms-to-be.  They should not be used as an example or role model because most teen moms don't have the priviledge of these two.  The message should be that teens shouldn't get pregnant and should take every pre-caution to prevent against it.  It's great that they decided to keep their babies, but let's not act like this is a good thing.

Nice post tar036. But I don't think anyone is promoting teen pregnancy (at least anyone sain). The fact of life is that IT HAPPENS. And the point is that it should be faced as an "off limits" matter.

It makes me sick to hear anyone being judgmental on Palin or challenging her parental skills on her daughter's pregnancy...

It even sounds totalitarian: the pretension of an ideology (in this case the extremist ideology of individualism / "privacy"/abortion) to conform every aspect of peoples' lives. Reaching the most absurd result: you must conform your individual behavior to privacy standards (meaning, privacy according to Roe vs. Wade) or your private behavior is not acceptable!

What some are saying is something like this, as plainly absurd, politically stupid and morally unacceptable as it is: you're not fit to be VP of America if your teen daughter gets pregnant and she doesn't abort (because if she DID abort, like Betty Ford's daughter, you'd be fit, you would be  "private" enough!).

I agree that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether she is able to be the VP.  I think her severe lack of experience and the fact that we have no idea about her foreign policy vision or if she even has an opinion about such matters is of greater concern

But, here is a quote from Richard Land:

"Those who criticize the Palin family don't understand that we don't see babies as a punishment but as a blessing. Barack Obama said that if one of his daughters made a mistake and got pregnant out of wedlock, he wouldn't want her to be punished with a child. Pro-lifers don't see a child as punishment."

It begs the question, if Evangelical leaders are turning this into a political issue to bash Barack Obama's views on abortion, are they making questions about Palin fair game?  If they are hailing this as a great American story, don't people have the equal right to give their views on why this isn't a great American story.  

Furthermore, I feel this could lead to a good debate on how to reduce unwanted pregnancies, since John McCain (and Sarah Palin) does not believe we should use tax dollars to educate teens on contraception and helping provide them with tools to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  I certainly think this is fair game because these are real issues that we face in this country and there is a stark contrast between the Republican philosophy of abstinence-only education and the Democratic philosophy of abstinence, yes, but you also need to be realisitc that kids will have sex and need to know how to protect themselves from disease and an unwanted pregnancy.

Ditto tar036. LuisPC, the Palin family made a choice that should be respected and kept private.  Privacy doesn't equate to getting an abortion as you posit.  But as tar036 points out, Bristol and Jamie Lynn are hardly your average struggling teen parent.  Imagine their decision to give birth thrust upon them rather than made of their own free will.

"Privacy doesn't equate to getting an abortion as you posit. "

I do not posit that. On the contrary. I say that such an absurd assertion is implicit in the argument of some "privacy" champions that think they are in a position to judge Palin.

"But as tar036 points out, Bristol and Jamie Lynn are hardly your average struggling teen parent".

I don't question and I understand. But that point would only be relevant IF the Republicans were trying to get political advantage of the girls pregnancy or setting her as an example. And as far as I can see, they aren't.

What I was discussing here was the opposite temptation of the Democrats...

"I don't question and I understand. But that point would only be relevant IF the Republicans were trying to get political advantage of the girls pregnancy or setting her as an example. And as far as I can see, they aren't."

But, my question still remains, if the Republicans are making this an issue to further their anti-abortion agenda, are they making the scrutiny of Palin fair game?  My opinion is that they are using this situation to advance this agenda.  But, I don't think the counter-point is to go after Palin, I think the counter-point is to discuss the issues that the MAJORITY of pregnant teens face a tough decision to bring a child into the world without healthcare, quality education, shelter, food, clothing, etc.  This is the reason many of them feel hopeless and make the decision to terminate the pregnancy.  This is why we need to reduce these numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and if the person decides to keep the child that we have a system to help them.  Not one that rewards them for continuing to have children, but one that makes the decision to keep the child a little easier.  

It seems that the Evangelicals want to point to this as a huge success story for the pro-life movement while ignoring the fact that most who find themselves in this situation aren't as well off as Bristol Palin.    

Over at National Review, regarding the Palin pregnancy, one of the writers wrote, "Even so, parents can admire the young girl’s decision not to take the easy way out and have an abortion."

I know nothing about Alaska in this department, but CAN a 17-year-old have an abortion without her parents's say? If she wanted to but couldn't, the last word someone should use here is "choice".

Anybody remember Murphy Brown?  How times change.  

I have this sneaking suspicion that McCain just might be behind this bit of political jiu-jistsu.  Wasn't so long ago that Gennifer Flowers put a jolt of publicity into the near-dead primary campaign of one W.J. Clinton, inspiring lots of healthy debate about public morality and second chances.