Posts
What I completely don't understand in this whole "debate" is how conservative "abstinence only" people miss that this isn't about the baby at all (well...theoretically. But that's a whole 'nother discussion): It's about a ruined life - the mother's. There is no question that a child born into Sarah Palin's family will be "alright." To me that's not the issue. Bristol actually explains it pretty perfectly:
"I wish it would happen in like 10 years, so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared, and have my own house and stuff. But he brings so much joy. I don't regret it at all. I just wish it would have happened in 10 years rather than right now."Of course not many people "regret" their children. Whether they are children themselves or not. What they will "regret" and mourn, forever, is the death of their potential. If we take away the power for girls to protect themselves from having their future's destroyed, isn't our whole society to follow?
Should Bristol have kids? Sure, why not? Should she have them now? Probably not. Does SHE have the right to decide whether or not to have/keep the baby? Of course she does (for now anyway). Just like she had the choice to use protection in the first place, but for whatever reason (gee I can't imagine...) she was too afraid to go that route. So here sits a girl, not a woman, who is going to do her best to stumble through the rest of her life and stumble through motherhood. Wouldn't everyone have been better off if she had waited 10 years?
