This whole thing makes me angry on so many levels... Couldn't McCain find a woman whose family is not a Lifetime movie? I hear conservatives justifying her decisions and life, but good heavens! I realize that she is not applying for the position of mother of my children, and I also realize that if she were a father the conversation would be different.
But abstinence only ed?
US Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whose presumptive running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teenage mothers to stay in school or lose their welfare benefits.What was she thinking? Did she need her 17 year old's pregnancy to know that this is a bad idea? Couldn't she have learned that from other people's mistakes?
Not that McCain is any better...
In 2005, McCain opposed a Senate Democratic proposal that would have spent tens of millions of dollars to pay for pregnancy prevention programs including education on emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill; teen-pregnancy prevention programs except abstinence-only education; and required insurance companies that cover Viagra also to pay for prescription contraception.On the positive side:
Palin's fifth child, a son named Trig, was born in April with Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that impedes physical, intellectual and language development. Conservatives supportive of Palin as McCain's running mate have praised her choice to deliver Trig even after the family learned about his condition during prenatal testing.I respect the fact Palin chose to give birth to a child with disabilities, even though she knew ahead of time. Personally, I am pro-life (although I do not believe that I have any right imposing that belief on others, or judging others for believing differently). For myself, I chose not to have the kinds of prenatal testing that would show disorders. (Not that W's problems would have shown up anyway...) But having had a disabled child, I don't see where she is going to find time to be vice-president. I just don't. Todd, the conservative, says that Palin's husband will just take care of the baby. Again, what I remember is that Todd and I both went to a number of the doctor's appointments for W, just so we both knew what was going on.
Again, Palin is not applying for the position of mother, but of vice-president. So is it even fair to look at her mothering?
2 comments:
If you had asked me that last question twenty-five years ago, I would have slung my feminist fist in the air and said HELL NO.
Then I became a mother, and my biology said otherwise. I think a lot of the Gloria Steinem wannabes found out the You Can Do It All plan wasn't a feasible daily plan. Sure, you can do it all, but you can't do everything well. So what gets left? The laundry? The dishes? No one cares about that, but when the thing left behind is your children, then this train needs to stop.
Maybe Palin can do it all. I don't know her. I just know if I had a four-month old child with Down's, a son in Iraq, a 17 year-old pregnant daughter, and two other children at home I'd have my hands full with much more important business than running a campaign or a country.
Country First? No. Not this time.
I believe you have just as much right to question her parenting style and choices as the country had to question Clinton's integrity as a president based on his short-comings as a spouse. It calls to question a few valid arguments-judgement, prioritization and decision making.
Every parent wants to be the best parent they can possibly be. Going into it knowing other obligations make it impossible to be the best,but you can do fairly well already puts you at a great disadvantage. Accepting this disadvantage and moving forward says you're a. naive b. not that into parenting. Either way speaks volumes for the Family Values party's VP nominee.
Post a Comment