Palin Does Not Support Teenage Moms, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 3-9-2008 @ 10:39 AM by maybereal11

Sarah Palin supports teenage mothers who have unplanned pregnancies...just as long as they are HER children.

I am confused how this syncs with the GOP spin that she is a Pro-Lifer that supports mothers who have an unplanned pregnancy?

Sara Palin Slashed Funding for Teenage Moms
voices.washingtonpost.com...

EDIT to clarify: The original amount the Alaskan State Legislature Decided was appropriate was an increase in comparison to 2006. Sarah Palin used a "line item veto" to reduce this amount substantially.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 10:44 AM by Fathom

the democrat panic is laughable...really...pitiful.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 10:45 AM by FlyersFan

DEBUNKED

Read here

It was cut back but only after it had already been raised three-fold.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 10:45 AM by vor78

reply to post by maybereal11

Has her daughter applied for assistance under the program? No.

Seems to me that she is supporting her own daughter the old fashioned way, through loving support of family and friends. Maybe that's the way it should be?

This is just another attempt to use her daughter's pregnancy against her. And if the poster above is correct (and I had not heard that before), it was simply a somewhat downward revision following a dramatic increase in funding for the program itself.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by vor78]

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 10:46 AM by PammyK

Yeah! That will teach those pregnant girls!!!

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 10:53 AM by CO Vet

The Libs are definitely digging here, and only hitting empty pockets.

Paul Kane/WaPo's reporting skills are on par with DailyKos (Sarah Palin veto)

Wonder why they are working so hard to get Palin off the Republican ticket?

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 10:58 AM by maybereal11

Originally posted by FlyersFan
DEBUNKED

Read here

It was cut back but only after it had already been raised three-fold.

Let me clarify then. By Slashed I mean used a line item veto (ala bush) to overrule and reduce the amount of support that the Alaskan State Legislature felt should be given to teenage mothers.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:12 AM by LLoyd45

Perhaps these girls families should be providing care and assistance for their daughters like the Palins are.. Why is it the state's responsibility to pay for their care and upkeep? That's what families used to do. More parents need to be responsible like Governor Palin, and own their own problems, and stop asking for handouts.

Besides, Palin did not cut their funding she only limited it to prevent causing cuts in other community programs that are also needed. That's an executive decision by the way..

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:14 AM by sc2099

reply to post by maybereal11

This isn't failing to support teenage moms, who have made the decision that they want to support themselves by deciding they are capable of raising a child btw. This is the governor deciding that the state should not promote teen motherhood by providing a safety net for their bad decisions. The state shouldn't be supporting anyone and teenage moms are no different.

This is cutting state expenditures, not Sarah Palin passing a law banning teen moms in the state of Alaska. Stop sensationalizing.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:22 AM by maybereal11

Originally posted by sc2099
reply to post by maybereal11

This isn't failing to support teenage moms, who have made the decision that they want to support themselves by deciding they are capable of raising a child btw.

Whoa...Is that the case that is being made? That young mothers are making the "decision that they want to support themselves by DECIDING they are capable of raising a child"

Wow..so I expect Sarah Palin will be kicking her pregnant daughter out of the house soon since she has "decided" to have a child and go it alone?

The lack of understanding and sympathy is astounding and shows the true sentiments of the GOP and it is in direct contrast to the image of a supportive mother that they are portraying of Sarah Palin.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:26 AM by maybereal11

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by maybereal11

Has her daughter applied for assistance under the program? No.

Seems to me that she is supporting her own daughter the old fashioned way, through loving support of family and friends. Maybe that's the way it should be?

[edit on 3-9-2008 by vor78]

Yes Vor...That is the way it should be.

Unfortunately not every teenage mom has the "loving support of family and friends"

But screw the rest of them if they don't have a loving home and support network or a mother who is Govenor, right?

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:31 AM by nyk537

This is ludicrous.

The left is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for attacks on Palin now. I knew she was a good pick but I never thought it would have this much of an effect on the Democrats!

I'm having so much fun.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:31 AM by vor78

reply to post by maybereal11

The surest sign that someone has lost the argument? They start twisting words and you're doing that right now. I never said 'screw the rest of them.' I would not be in support of ditching the program entirely and that is not what has occured in this case.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:32 AM by sc2099

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by sc2099
reply to post by maybereal11

This isn't failing to support teenage moms, who have made the decision that they want to support themselves by deciding they are capable of raising a child btw.

Whoa...Is that the case that is being made? That young mothers are making the "decision that they want to support themselves by DECIDING they are capable of raising a child"

Wow..so I expect Sarah Palin will be kicking her pregnant daughter out of the house soon since she has "decided" to have a child and go it alone?

The lack of understanding and sympathy is astounding and shows the true sentiments of the GOP and it is in direct contrast to the image of a supportive mother that they are portraying of Sarah Palin.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

A. I am not a member of the GOP. Stop prejudging.

B. If someone decides they are ready to have sex, they are deciding they are ready to have a child. If you decide you are ready to have a child, then you have decided you are ready to leave your parents' house because if you are ready to take care of your own offspring you should no longer need your own parents' support. Many parents allow kids who have kids to stay, but many parents don't want to raise their own grandchildren.

Ms. Palin is clearly very sympathetic even though her daughter made a very poor decision. I don't know what her plans are regarding her daughter's living situation, but I don't think she'll be asking the state for money for a child she was unprepared for.

C. Why should someone need sympathy for a decision that they made of their own volition?

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:37 AM by nyk537

Originally posted by sc2099
C. Why should someone need sympathy for a decision that they made of their own volition?

They shouldn't. However, the left bases their whole game on this sort of sympathy politics. It all ties in to the nanny state they would love to see too. In their eyes, a perfect world is one in which the government provides for your every need.

I'm not sure what they would have Palin do anyway. Abandon her daughter? Not accept the VP job because of this? What?

The sick thing is, in a lot of these liberal circles, if Palins daughter had decided to have an abortion, she would probably be receiving praise right now.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:40 AM by maybereal11

reply to post by vor78

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. A mistaken assumption.
In your post you did not say that you supported the program, but rather that the way to support a teenage mother was the way that Sarah Palin is.

My point stands...not everyone has the support network or a Govenor as mother and I would have hoped to see Sarah Palin recognize this by not reducing what the Alaskan State Legislature decided was appropriate for the charity.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:42 AM by Loki

reply to post by sc2099

Because I'm living breathing proof that accidents happen. If my mother hadn't had help from both her family, and the government (as well as my stepfather) We would not have made it, and I would have probably spent my formative years in an orphanage or worse.

Secondly, deciding to have sex as a teenager is not equal to deciding you're ready for a kid. No, basically all the decisions are made by raging hormonal fluxes. It's their instincts to screw as much as possible with as many people as possible. We just need to quit riding that tired ass catholic church schtick and start contraception education in the schools.

Not only will the number of unwanted pregnancies decrease but it will also help in the fight against AIDS.

anyways...

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Loki]

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:45 AM by sc2099

reply to post by nyk537

I have to say I agree. The fact that her daughter is making the decision to have the baby rather than taking the much easier route of aborting is important. It shows she stands by her principles and there is no exception when it's her child who has made a poor decision. I'm sure keeping the baby is what Sarah Palin would want her daugher to do, while many people would have preferred that their children have an abortion...so they aren't "punished" for the rest of their lives with a child they didn't want.

I agree with your observation of the left politicizing sympathy, and its purpose of getting people to allow the government to provide for them. Well put.

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:52 AM by maybereal11

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by sc2099
C. Why should someone need sympathy for a decision that they made of their own volition?

They shouldn't. However, the left bases their whole game on this sort of sympathy politics.

I am lost with this Logic. At what age is a girl CAPABLE of making this DECISION? Is the premise that as soon as a teenage girl is able to concieve she is qualified to make the DECISION to have a child? 12 years old? 13 years old? 14?

If they are capable of firing a firearm...is the child qualified to do so? I see plenty of little boys playing with plastic guns, they must be ready.
Drive a car? Drink? Fill out a ballot?

AT WHAT AGE do you think these girls are making rational decisions to raise a family?

Please explain the logic to me and how they are making rational "decisions" of their "own volition".

So I suppose it's okay for older men to prey on teenage girls since they are capable of making these decisions.

We have laws to protect people from this.

BTW ... Isn't the boy who got Sarah Palin's daughter pregnant 19? The daughter was 16 at the time? Why hasn't he been charged?

reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 11:54 AM by sc2099

Originally posted by Loki
reply to post by sc2099

Because I'm living breathing proof that accidents happen. If my mother hadn't had help from both her family, and the government (as well as my stepfather) We would not have made it, and I would have probably spent my formative years in an orphanage or worse.

Secondly, deciding to have sex as a teenager is not equal to deciding you're ready for a kid. No, basically all the decisions are made by raging hormonal fluxes. It's their instincts to screw as much as possible with as many people as possible. We just need to quit riding that tired ass catholic church schtick and start contraception education in the schools.

Not only will the number of unwanted pregnancies decrease but it will also help in the fight against AIDS.

anyways...

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Loki]

I would guess that most couples don't plan their children. No one I know ever has. It's always been more of a...surprise. It's their right as adults (and non-Chinese citizens) to plan or not to plan as they see fit. However, whether or not they plan for kids is not the responsibility of the state, and neither should the outcome of that planning be.

When a person is 15-16-17 years old they are old enough to understand where babies come from and that if they engage in sex they might find themselves with one. Saying that teens can't keep themselves from having sex because of hormones is like saying men can't keep themselves from cheating because of a biological drive to keep the species alive. Come on.

Obviouly people even younger than 15 understand where babies come from, but there is no way that someone who can't even drive should be having sex. For schools to promote 'safe' sex to people this age is irresponsible because as I have said before, schools don't have the wherewithal to walk the line between promoting and educating.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^