Originally posted by maybereal11
AT WHAT AGE do you think these girls are making rational decisions to raise a family?

Somewhere around the time they are able to make the decision to have sex.

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?

Check and see what the age of consent is in Alaska.

Why don't you do some research or think for yourself a little before spouting off about these things?

Originally posted 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?

Well, Bristol Palin is 17. I believe most 17 year olds are capable of making the decision of whether or not they are prepared to have children. It's not a hard decision. I belive it is glaringly obvious to even younger teens that they are not ready to be parents. This being the case, it should also be obvious that they are not ready to have sex.

Bristol wasn't raped. Therefore she made the decision to have sex (and possibly a child) of her own volition. As she seems to be mentally sound, how was this choice not made rationally? How exactly was she coerced into having sex when she wasn't ready?

The point is that she made a decision by herself and it turned out to be the wrong one.

You seem to be saying that Bristol wasn't capable of making a rational decision of whether or not she should have sex. So I can only gather that you think she should not have been having sex at all, and so she deserves sympathy for doing something she knew she shouldn't have. What exactly are you saying here?

Originally posted by sc2099
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.

Understanding where babies come from is not an adequate pre-requisition for making the decision to become a parent.

Children understand all kinds of things... like how to fire a gun and what guns do...it doesn't mean they are qualified to make those decisions.

What about girls that are younger than 15? Do you not think this program has helped girls younger than 15?

I am glad that Sarah Palin is supporting her daughter and the pregnancy, i just wish that she had opted to agree with the State Legislature in how to support other unplanned pregnancies for girls that don't have a support network.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by sc2099
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.

Understanding where babies come from is not an adequate pre-requisition for making the decision to become a parent.

Children understand all kinds of things... like how to fire a gun and what guns do...it doesn't mean they are qualified to make those decisions.

What about girls that are younger than 15? Do you not think this program has helped girls younger than 15?

I already addressed this in my previous post, but I will reiterate. If a person can look at their life and see "I live in my parents' home. I work for minimum wage part time at the mall. I am not a high school graduate yet. I have no career training. I still ask my parents for spending money. I am not prepared to have a child." then it is obvious to them that they are unfit to become parents at that point in time. A person doesn't have to be 25, 21, or 18 to make such an observation. A 12 yaer old can see that they are painfully unable to care for a child, and should thus not have sex.

It's the same with any life decision. If a person is unable to take the proper responsibility that comes with a weapon, they should not own one. Erase weapon and put car, alcohol, tobacco, or sex. If a person is not responsible enough to take care of a baby then clearly they are not responsible enough for sex.

This program has helped some girls I'm sure. But the issue isn't whether or not it's helped girls; it's whether or not the state should pay for it. This program does not need to be subsidized by taxpayers. If girls don't even have a family who takes care of them, and they can't take care of themselves, they sure as hell should not be having sex and possibly begetting a child. There is no way the state should be sponsoring this kind of bad behavior and poor decision making.

Originally posted by sc2099
[
It's the same with any life decision. If a person is unable to take the proper responsibility that comes with a weapon, they should not own one. Erase weapon and put car, alcohol, tobacco, or sex. If a person is not responsible enough to take care of a baby then clearly they are not responsible enough for sex.

The difference is that as far as a weapon, car, alchohol, and tobacco...young teenagers are not by default equiped with these items and their use is appropriately restricted to the best of our ability.

My point is that you made a case for ....if they are able to have sex, then they should own that decision and consequences without assitance from the state. I think that there are very young girls who are not capable of making rational decisions yet concerning parenthood, but are capable of getting pregnant and that if they don't have the support network or finances that Palin's daughter has then they deserve sympathy and support from their fellow citizens.

These programs support girls as young as 12 who have gotten pregnant and are in impovershed circumstances. YES they deserve sympathy.

Originally posted by sc2099
A 12 yaer old can see that they are painfully unable to care for a child, and should thus not have sex.

It's the same with any life decision. If a person is unable to take the proper responsibility that comes with a weapon, they should not own one.

A twelve year old is NOT equiped to make rational decisions regarding parenthood. We can hope they are and teach them well...but that's a different topic.

As far as "If a person is unable to take the proper responsibility that comes with a weapon, they should not own one" Well as it is, these girls ARE equiped with the tools that lead to pregnancy.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I think that there are very young girls who are not capable of making rational decisions yet concerning parenthood, but are capable of getting pregnant and that if they don't have the support network or finances that Palin's daughter has then they deserve sympathy and support from their fellow citizens.

These programs support girls as young as 12 who have gotten pregnant and are in impovershed circumstances. YES they deserve sympathy.

All you do by providing them support is create a cycle of poverty, and foster learned helplessness. They must be made to learn from their mistakes, not patted on the back and rewarded for their irresponsibility. Surely they knew their parents would not help them before they decided to play adults and have sex out of wedlock..

What happened to all the wonderful Sex Education they have in schools nowadays? Why is the pregnancy rate increasing rather than going down?

Maybe all these unwed mothers are starting to see having babies as a way to be independent from their families , and at the same time not have to work like responsible parents do..:@@

Originally posted by maybereal11

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.

What is your point?

Chief Executives and the State Legislature disagree on how much to spend on programs all the time. They go back and forth and work things out. Gov. Palin felt that a 3-fold increase in spending was a bit much so she scaled it back.

At least Gov. Palin has experience making tough budget decisions. Candidates with only legislative experience are prone to promise money to every political group they can identify to win votes.

Originally posted by maybereal11

In 2006 the facility received $1,194,778 dollars from the government.
In 2007 the state legislature submitted a budget that allocated $5 million.
Gov. Palin vetoed this line item, and the amount given to the organization was $3.9 million.

The organization received an increase of about $2.8 million dollars in state funds. Their funding wasn't slashed, it was INCREASED.

To twist this information to the point where you conclude "Palin Does Not Support Teenage Moms" is more of a reflection of your hatred and misguided reasoning than Gov. Palin's feelings towards teenage moms.

Originally posted by maybereal11
As far as "twisting words" its hard to take that seriously from someone that started a thread claiming Obama sees his grandchildren as "punishment".

Ok, please correct me. What were the exact words Obama said?

I'll give you a head start. Let's play fill in the blank:

"look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them ___________________ with a baby," Obama said.


Like I said, your post is a reflection on you, not Sarah Palin.

Originally posted by maybereal11
The alaskan state legislature voted to allocate 5 Million dollars and Palin chose to line item veto it and REDUCED it by over a million dollars.

Uh .. not really. It was still 4 million dollars MORE than it had been.

She increased the allocation by 4 million instead of 5 million.

Why increase by 4 million and not 5 million?
It was an EXECUTIVE decision based upon funds available and need.

It is absolutely impossible to suggest that Palin 'slashed funding' when in fact she raised the funding by 4 million from where it was.


OY!

Originally posted by Loki
You can't have it both ways…we took that risk on the glands of an adolescent. If we're going to make a mistake like that we should own it. We know we can help the problem but you insist on not doing everything we can to solve it.

This is classical liberal collective guilt thinking. Who’s the “we” that made a mistake? I’m sorry that people make mistakes but I don’t feel that somehow I should be held culpable just because I happen to live in the same continent. Why this constant attempt to spread guilt all over as if it had no specific origin? Guess what…sometime people make mistakes and those mistakes lead to very devastating results! Why should the rest of society be beholden to people that either can’t or won’t behave responsibly?

If I made a ‘mistake’ by betting my life savings on the roulette wheel and lost, would that be everyone’s mistake? Should society then be forced to support me? Would you be happy to "own" that?

Originally posted by maybereal11
Sarah Palin supports teenage mothers who have unplanned pregnancies...just as long as they are HER children.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by maybereal11]

charity should begin at home, then if it fails....only then should the search for help be extended outward.....
so, ya she supports HER DAUGHTER, so where's the families of all these other girls out there? are they supporting theirs?

by the way.....ya know, cheney's daughter's gay, didn't hear this much crap about her, why is that? is it that because cheney's the father instead of the mother, that well, he shouldn't be held responsible for every foul up that has occured in the child's life, only the mother or what? come on, what gives here? bush's daughters were drinking themselves to death....and well, if I ctook the time, I more than likely think of alot more wayward presidential children. but, one little girl gets pregnant, and the crap hits the fan, because, well, it's her mom running for office, not her dad?

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by maybereal11

In 2006 the facility received $1,194,778 dollars from the government.
In 2007 the state legislature submitted a budget that allocated $5 million.
Gov. Palin vetoed this line item, and the amount given to the organization was $3.9 million.

The organization received an increase of about $2.8 million dollars in state funds. Their funding wasn't slashed, it was INCREASED.

To twist this information to the point where you conclude "Palin Does Not Support Teenage Moms" is more of a reflection of your hatred and misguided reasoning than Gov. Palin's feelings towards teenage moms.

It is quite obvious that the Alaskan problem with childhood pregnancy was sufficient for the legislature to agree to this amount. By adhering to an abstinence policy, the problem just becomes worse and worse. I think it is appalling for Palin to cut what a large group of her peers decided what was best.I would view as a personal decision by Palin rather than a move to support her constuients.

We are basically animals. Animals do not wait until they are a certian age to try to reproduce. When the hormones hit and the heat comes they know one thing and that is the extreme urge to reproduce. If a child isn't taught the consequences then it is only the parents and the education system that is to blame. You cannot blame the child. So basically Sarah Palin is to blame for not instilling this in her daughter. Maybe she was too busy being a politician to pay her daughter the proper attention?

As to young unmarried mothers taking care of themselves, for most without the family means, it is very improbable that they will be able to care for their children in a way that our society seems fit. Children are expensive and most 17 year olds are unable to locate a job which would provide sufficient earnings. Would those of you agruing against aid for these cases, prefer to see the baby and mopther freze to death in the Alaskan winter? I have found that most folks with these views consider themselves "christians". I find that really sad that the supposedly most moral amongst us, are the ones who hold the most convictions that go against what Jesus taught.

Flame me all you want with the attack on christians, I am not one(was raised one), but I definitely believe in the principles that were passed down by Jesus. I also feel that most Christians do not share these basic principles except for when it fits their wants. Thus I look at most religous as extreme hypocrites and would never cast my vote in that direction.

If you were in a situation where you had a choice to stand-by your daughter or not, what would YOU do? The answer is obvious. She does it because she HAS to. Palin is only supporting her daughter because THAT IS HER DAUGHTER. She most likely doesn't support teenage pregnancies but when faced with a situation like this, what do you think any parent would do? What's Palin going to do about her daughter's pregnancy? Talk her to death? Not many would FORCE their daughter to have an abortion. Having the baby IS her punishment, she'll have to live with it for the rest of her life.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have more sensible articles on ATS to read.