For me, it's not this so much. I don't know how accessible abortion is in Alaska, but perhaps she could have chosen to have one.
My line of inquiry stemming from this pregnancy has to do with Palin's lack of support for sex ed in the schools...
http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot...-
candidate.html
Given what I know about her so far, I figure she is an "abstinence only" advocate. Jefferson Morley summed it up in a nutshell in a commentary over at NMI:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/...ew/sarah-
palins
This pregnancy does shoot holes in the argument that an abstinence only approach to sex ed in the schools and at home isn't sufficient to prevent teenage pregnancy, much less std's. If Palin can't do it, who can?
I think we owe it to young girls, in particular, to ensure they have access to contraceptives and information about how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. This is their life we're talking about.
Hey Maggie, I don't know if you're honestly looking for an answer.
But the logic COULD go something like this (note: just guessing what might be in someone's head):
1) Abortion is bad.
2) Abortion should be outlawed.
3) Given that abortion isn't outlawed, people who chose not to do this bad thing should be applauded.
To flip the example to something people might not have as strong an opinion on: here in Japan recycling is enforced VERY strictly. I could imagine a Japanese environmentalist lauding Americans who voluntarily recycle, say, batteries:
1) Throwing away batteries is bad
2) Throwing away batteries should be outlawed
3) In a lawless battery discarding land, people who choose not to discard batteries should be applauded.
Note: this comment isn't about the morality of abortion at all, just about guessing at how people think. And trying to be generous in those guesses, even if you disagree with their fundamental premises.
(btw, Marjorie, that's a really interesting argument that I hadn't heard.)
(oof, Maggie, just reread my comment and that last line sounds all preachy, and I didn't mean it to be. Sorry 'bout that.)
The abstinence-only ed approach goes without saying... fantastic dialogue on feminist blogs today. And um.... yeah, was kind of asking a rhetorical question. 
I have seriously never seen an attempt to justify abstinence-only sex ed in print. Does such an animal even exist? The only argument I can even think of is based purely on religion. Do these people seriously think that kids aren't going to have sex because they took a class that told them they're not allowed to do it without even telling them what "it" is?
Are there any rational conservative blogs that we could have an exchange program with? All the ones I know of are either blatant mouthpiece blogs like Mario Burgos or full of completely unthinking knee-jerk reactionaries like EyeOnAlbuquerque.
The part that freaks me out is the fact that the girl and her boyfriend are getting married. How much of that decision was theirs, and how much was their parents pressing the issue to save political face for Sarah Palin? Political shotgun wedding anyone?
I reacted to that, too.
"They WILL be getting married."
Even though she's 5 months in, and wouldn't NOW be a better time than later?
Just asking...
I kind of wonder if/how Palin will manage to force the boyfriend to marry her daughter if in fact he doesn't want to.
I skimmed some article about him on huffpo yesterday and he appears to be a typical meathead 18 year old (like I was) and I doubt he has any desire to get married. The article mentioned that his myspace indicates that he specifically doesn't want kids.
Oops.
The abstinence only approach is widespread, among families anyhow, and is basically a "just don't do it" argument. I don't have a problem with it in the mix, actually, because I do think there's an enormous amount of pressure placed on young girls to have sex, not because they might enjoy it but because young boys might, and anything that creates an environment in which that pressure is alleviated is actually a good thing, in my book.
My problem with the "abstinence only" crowd though, is that once again they've turned it into an either/or thing, having this idea that young people who are having sex are making bad choices, and therefore deserve what they get...ie, pregnancy, std's.
Why not instead something along the lines of: "here's what this is all about. abstinence is by far the best thing for you--and here's how to engage in it until you are an adult. but here is some useful information for you also about how to protect yourself if you do engage in sex."
Its been statistically proven that schools with abstinence-only sex ed have higher rates of teen pregnancy than those who don't. I don't really understand why "abstinence first but if you're going to do it be safe" is controversial, its exactly what they taught us in Health class way back in the late 80's/early 90's when I was in HS.
I really don't understand the mindset that people have that teenagers are going to not have sex because their teachers told them not to. Have teenagers (or anyone else for that matter) ever responded well to "just don't do it" campaigns? It certainly hasn't worked for sex, drugs, booze, or rock & roll.
Also, it doesn't seem to work when we try to use an abstinence-only approach to warmongering on the GOP.
Marjorie, that is the exact conversation my mom had with me as a young teenager. And I was raised in a Southern Baptist church! Obviously, my mom saw the importance in presenting me with all the options including abstinence. Needless to say, I was one of the only girls in my Sunday School class that was taught there are options.
In the end, I actually did abstain until I was in college. I had a lot more respect for my parents by treating me like a young woman and placing the decision in my hands.
Commenting by HaloScan
