Monday, September 01, 2008

Palin's Daughter is Knocked Up/Pride Cometh After Her Fall

Ahhhh, can you imagine the pressure this young woman is feeling right now?

She has just had the entire WORLD know that she is pregnant, out of wedlock, to socially-conservative, albethey* non-denominational Christians. She made a mistake, got pregnant, her mom got nominated for the vice-presidency, and now the product of her sweaty lust is global headlines. I feel for her, I really do.

What I can't stand are two things:

#1 Why in the hell this didn't get announced prior and along with the nomination? It weakens credibility, etc. (I'm voting for Obama, but I think full disclosure of something like this is still respectful of the electorate).

#2 Why, oh why, is she marrying the guy? Why is the child not being given up for adoption? I would venture that it has everything to do with mom's politicking. This is the 19th Century, or even the 1950's. There are many, many, loving couples who would adopt. Rather, we're going to saddle a girl to the first boy she layed (presumably), and the child into a loveless marriage (I'm supposing); Mac's Daily Miscellany hereby goes on record that this marriage will not see 2018. Now, these are major stereotypes, but children who have children make everyone better off when they (not the parents) are presented with the adoption option and choose it. I have three children of my own, so I can fathom making the altruistic decision to give one up for adoption if it were in the best interest of the child. Money won't be a problem for the girl, but she is now going to suffer from the retarding weight of a child; college will be harder, work will be harder, her youth will disappear as she devotes herself to raising a child that I would wager she didn't want--but will still love.

Her parents assertion that they are "proud" of her decision to keep the baby, and "proud" to be grandparents is so f***ing ridiculous, I can't stand it. Pride is a sin (so is swearing; lay off me). "Happy" certainly, but pride gets wrapped up in so many thing, so many negatives that I can't stomach anyone mentioning how proud they are of someone else's egregiously poor decisions, especially politicians; especially people within a heartbeat (as we keep hearing from the media) of the presidency. It's that same ole petit-bourgeois attitude that sickens me. The people whose net-worth is more than $500k, but less than $3million are the worst. We had a man speak in our ward (church) yesterday. He drove a Cadillac; his suit was impeccable; he is a well-known business owner. He gave a lesson on priesthood keys, took out his keychain to illustrate a point, and noting the paucity of keys on his ring, said, "I don't own very much." Ahhh, the old "I'm poor," from people of substantial means.

This never ceases to amaze/bug me. The petit-bourgeois always call themselves poor or claim they don't have much. I'm no Marxist, but the precarios in Barrio Mexico and Leon XIII were filled with people who could claim truly to not "own much."

I feel bad for Miss Palin. Her mom is embarrassing the hell out of her on a global scale.

*I know this isn't a word


Paul Dunn said...

What? Mac... how dare you pass assertions like this about Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston? You don't know these people. You don't how long they've been together or what the situation truly is. Granted, unwed pregancy is shameful and disgraceful. HOWEVER, what if your sister or your daughter ended up in this very position? Would you make the same claims (their marriage won't last 10 years and they should give up their child for adoption)?

Politics aside here, but my step-sister ended up pregnant at age 21. Unwed and scared. At that time, I was not very "proud". Her son will be 3 next month, and am I proud of her... hell yes. She did the right things. She decided to keep her child. She and the father decided to get married. She and the father both found good paying jobs, found an affordable home that they own, and have made the sacrifices necessary to become good parents and good providers.

They had help along the way, but you don't cast people off because they made a moral mistake. Redemption is possible. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I have to say something.

I'm really surprised that no one else has even posted to this blog piece. Allow people to right what they have done wrong and don't be so quick to judge.

Mac said...


21 is hell and gone from Cartageña (17). At 21, this decision can be reached with a modicum of understanding of what you're giving up. These kids can't even legally vote for her mom yet. They are kids, and no amount of "forgive the sinnner" rhetoric from you, or anyone, is going to convince me that two high schoolers getting pregnant and married in the global spotlight is a good decision.

I'm not casting someone off, I'm simply stipulating what cold hard stats, life experience, and concern for the child tell me. Forgive the sinners, certainly, but don't let them make more mistakes by forcing marriage on two people as a form of societal atonement. Think about the welfare of the child, first and foremost.

The leaders here set themselves up as examples, whether they like it or not, and we've just had the potential vice president say that she's cool with teenage pregnancy, nay she's proud of her daughter. I could stomach "happy." But, pride is a whole other level of parental denial and soothsaying that I can't cotton.

It was a moral decision; I'm thrilled she's not aborting the baby, but I will call out her mom and her dad for saying that they're "proud." You're damned right I will.

Mac said...

Oh, and for the record, if it were Susanna, Marley, or Calliope in a similar situation, I would use all of my powers of persuasion to encourage them to give the child up for adoption. Once the decision were reached, by the child (or my sister 11 years ago), I would support them, I would slay the fatted calf for the prodigal daughter in celebration of their return to righteousness, but the word "proud" would never, ever leave my lips.

chattypatra said...

Mac, I do respect you, but I have to agree with Paul on this one. While you are correct about the meaning of the word 'proud', I believe it can be easy for us as active members of the Church to forget that to most of the rest of the world, saying you are 'proud' of your child is the equivalent of saying that you love them.

In this case, I am fairly certain that Governor Palin was conveying the fact that neither she or her husband are shunning their daughter or condemning her for her sin, nor do they love her less. I highly doubt that she meant they are actually proud of what she and her boyfriend have done - in the correct meaning of that word - as any Mormon fully understands it.

Furthermore, unless you are privy to some inside information that comes from an intimate connection to one or both of these families, I don't see how you can be sure that these young people are being forced into a marriage. I am not yet as cynical as you sound, my friend. Such an assertion is not worthy of your good heart either.

When I was 14, after I graduated from 8th grade, my father retired from work and he and my mother decided to transfer me to a prep school close to our house. On the second semester of that freshman year, I found out that my best friend from childhood - and two other girls who had gone to school with me since Kinder - were pregnant. At 15!

I was stunned, angry and truly devastated. What were they thinking? We hadn't been brought up that way! I didn't understand.

One of them married the father of her child and eventually had another. The other two did not get married. All kept their babies. None of them ever expressed regret for their decision. They wished they had been wiser and waited until they were adults, but they loved their children, raised them with help from their families, all the while continuing to study all the way until they received college degrees.

I think the Palins' decision is their own business, and I find it funny that Democrats are bashing them, and yet defended Clinton when his infidelities came out into the limelight...but that's an old story.

While I like some of the things Democrats expound and deplore some of the ones Republicans stand for in their respective platforms (not to mention the ones both have already done through the years), I have to think as an active Mormon first and foremost. How can I not?

This, of course, is my personal choice, simply because I have spent 24 years suffering calumny and persecution from family members for being a Mormon and standing up for the fullness of the Gospel.

Therefore, I cannot vote for a man who supports late term abortions and gay marriage.

Yes, President Bush has wreaked havoc on our country, but I have to uphold my Temple covenants first. You will probably think I am an idiot, and that's fine; you have a right to your opinion...but so do I.

I believe John McCain is a good man, and I believe he is smarter and has more guts than the current occupant of the White House.

I think the war is obscene and I know our nation's economy and infracstructure are in grave danger of collapsing. However, as urgent as those matters are, our greatest priority should be to obey the Lord's commandments. For me, a leader who supports grievious sins that threaten to destroy the sacredness of the family unit - even if he doesn't believe/understand that he is doing so - is a person I cannot vote for come November.

Back on point, if the governor's daughter and her boyfriend were grown up enough to have sex, then they need to be grown up enough to face the consequences. Breaking the law of chastity is not a mistake, it is a sin. Any person who truly believes in the Lord, in any Christian religion, knows this.

Like I said, I grew up a Catholic, and I knew very well that it was a sin to fornicate. It's lovely to talk about the rights of stupid teenagers who get pregnant and would 'throw their lives away', as people say, if they actually take responsibility.

I say, what about the rights of those unborn children? All cases vary but - in this particular one - there is no reason to give the baby up for adoption. Still, what matters is what the family wants to do, not what we think they should do. Again, none of our business. The girl is not the vice-presidential candidate.

Ok, then. Hope you're still talking to me after this! ;)

Matt the Treehugger said...

It's beyond me how anyone who opposes abortion can vote for a man who supports it. The one lasting influence of a president is the judges and justices he appoints. Almost everything else a president does goes away in a few months or a few years after he leaves office. Look at Justices Ginsberg and Breyer. Clinton's been out of office for almost eight years, but Ginsberg and Breyer are still legislating from the bench and will continue to do so for many years to come. Bush's judicial legacy includes Justices Roberts and Alito. Roberts and Alito are something worth voting for.