Sarah Palin: Why A Fifth Child at 44?

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

And how would you suggest enforcing this 'one or two' limit? What happens if a third pops up? On what do you base this limit? Didn't China have a policy about this? Are you suggesting that we follow their lead?

I know that several members of these boards have more than one or two children. What do you say to them?

Matt,
Of course I don't propose any "enforcement." If someone wants to have 20 children, it's a free country--just don't expect me to applaud having 20 children (when I was growing up, there were farm families with that many children).

I would be interested to hear those here who may have CHOSEN to have a large family how they square that with social responsibility. Again, I think raising a large family of adopted children is a fine thing. I also realize that no family planning is perfect--people do experience "surprises"--there's nothing wrong with that! Nor will I arbitrarily say that one or two is great and three is wrong.

Also, I believe every child that comes into this world has a claim on all of our love and resources. For that reason the choice to bring a child into this world is a very serious choice. And the reality is that the children of middle and upper-class Americans consume more of the world's resources, per capita, than the children of the world's poor--this raises questions of justice along with a lot of our country's other policies. Just because one might be able to afford a large family, does not justify having a large family.

I don't like what goes on in China. I believe they have reacted in a situation of extreme over-population--much worse than we have now. I don't want to see us get into a similar situation and react in the same way. I do not believe in totalitarianism, nor do I approve of China's totalitarian solutions to population or anything else.

As I said, I'm from a large family myself--eight brothers and sisters. My husband and I raised his two daughters together and we are over-joyed to have a little grand-daughter. I'd be just as happy to have more grand-children, but that's up to the daughters and not to us and it doesn't look like it's going to happen. I'm not going to be disappointed in the one grandchild we have--quite the opposite! She will be very fortunate to have all the resources and love that comes from parents, grandparents and an aunt!

We all could get into another big argument over automobiles and whether people have the "right" to burn alot of carbon-based fuels. Sure they have the "right," but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. It comes down to much the same concern--it's a small world and the human race is having a catastrophic impact on it.

Steven Webster

[nmwolfboy]

Despite Palin's claim to be pro-contraception, she is a member of the radical and deceptively named "Feminists for Life," (FFL) which is a strong opponent of not only abortion, but also of IUDs and hormonal birth control methods, which includes birth control pills. Among other deceptive positions held by FFL is the claim that they represent 'true choice' for women, while actively promoting in their periodical The American Feminist that the best choice for women is to stay home as full-time mothers.

Given Palin's membership in and support of FFL, i find her claim to be pro-contraception very suspect.

The more i research her, the more Palin appears to be a Christian Dominionist idealogue, or at the very least, a person sympathetic to the Christian Dominionist philosophy.

[keltic63]

I've skimmed much of this thread, and I see that you all have a very interesting conversation going here. The thing that I'd like to point out, is that while Palin is Pro Life, and that she may be considered noble for continuing her pregnancy with the knowledge that her child is downs syndrome, the fact remains that she had a CHOICE. It is a choice that she would deny to other women.

Personally, I have been in that position. My youngest child, early in the pregnancy, was identified as possibly having downs syndrome. We did our research, asked a lot of questions, and discovered that the test is not accurate, and by itself should never be used to consider aborting a fetus. Further testing indicated that our child was healthy (he is!) but even that high level ultrasound could not guarantee he didn't have downs. We could never have aborted, but we still had the choice, which I value.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I've skimmed much of this thread, and I see that you all have a very interesting conversation going here. The thing that I'd like to point out, is that while Palin is Pro Life, and that she may be considered noble for continuing her pregnancy with the knowledge that her child is downs syndrome, the fact remains that she had a CHOICE. It is a choice that she would deny to other women.

Again, you explain it far better than I could. She did have a choice, and continued her pregnancy.

I also had a scare with my youngest child. (She was a bit unplanned, at least by my ex! .) I was told that she was not viable, my body told me different(after you are pregnant a few times, you know) I went originally to a right-to-life clinic to get tested as I had my insurance cancled at work and I needed help. They told me that my body was lying, I was not pregnant according to their test, and if I were, I would miscarry. My instinct told me otherwise and I went to the Planned Parenthood clinic and was retested. They showed me as just pregnant and encouragedme strongly to go to the OB and get my hormones tested. I did go the next day and surprise, my progesterone was low. I WOULD have miscarried if they didn't intervene with hormone shots(owie! 2 shots in the rear for 12 weeks, ever week, I could barely sit)and continued monitoring with weekly blood tests. My beautiful 9 year old would not be here if I had listened to Right To Life. If Palin gets in, how many WANTED children would die? They will continue to fund out of date info(at right to life) and they will indirectly murder many wanted children. The whole thing scares the tar out of me.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan is raising questions originally raised by Daily Kos: Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig after all? Is the child really her grandchild and the mother is her high school age daughter (who has been out of high school for eight months)?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-that-mak.html

I expect the truth will come out on this one way or the other. A legal birth certificate will remove all doubt.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan is raising questions originally raised by Daily Kos: Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig after all? Is the child really her grandchild and the mother is her high school age daughter (who has been out of high school for eight months)?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-that-mak.html

I expect the truth will come out on this one way or the other. A legal birth certificate will remove all doubt.

Steven Webster

If this proves out to be true, Palin's actions would be a slap in the face to every undwed mother in the country. And of course, at the heart of the story- again- if it turns out to be true- is the matter of lying to get ahead.

That would be the big no-no, would it not? My sense is that evangelicals would have a dim view of the matter. This would highlight the facade that conservatives like to show the world, rather than being normal - that is- ripe with contradiction- like the rest of humanity.

Can't wait to hear what diligent reporters come up with.

Addendum:

I looked at what the Daily Kos has on this, and I have to say that I find their information to be quite convincing- pictures and all. Interestingly, the hospital where the birth took place has not recorded it. And that's just one strange fact out of many.

I can imagine McCain ruing the day....

Next stop...Lieberman?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8...137/486/580223

Oh God...I think I am coming down with a severe case of schadenfreude. I mean what could be worse? Here it is- the perfect storm: a big fat ol' lie and Gustave- all in the same week. You can't make this stuff up.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Daniel

That would be the big no-no, would it not? My sense is that evangelicals would have a dim view of the matter.

Some evangelicals might have a dim view of this, but many evangelicals would probably overlook it because Palin is pro-life. They might also sympathize with her, asking themselves what they would do in her shoes.

The big question is, if the Republicans win in November and McCain dies of a heart attack in December, can Palin negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons?

Rick

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Some evangelicals might have a dim view of this, but many evangelicals would probably overlook it because Palin is pro-life. They might also sympathize with her, asking themselves what they would do in her shoes.

The big question is, if the Republicans win in November and McCain dies of a heart attack in December, can Palin negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons?

Rick

Rick,

The issue is--did McCain do a proper job of vetting this VP candidate? Are there patterns of untruthful and unethical behavior that went unnoticed? (There are a lot of issues being raised besides "babygate," for instance abuse of power in trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from a state job.) Did McCain ever even consider her foreign policy experience? Or did McCain just go for a pretty face and a compelling (though untrue) story? If she were properly vetted in the first place, we probably wouldn't even be asking these questions.

As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out on his blog--McCain's campaign is the one that put Sarah Palin's private life out there for comment and question by making such a big deal of her supposed fifth child. McCain presented THAT as her qualification for office, and not her foreign policy experience.

Remember Thomas Eagleton? He was the Democrat VP Candidate under McGovern. When it was learned that he'd been treated for depression and that came out in the media and it was suggested that he was not properly vetted, he was forced to resign from the ticket. This was a blow to the McGovern Campaign from which it did not recover.

Steven Webster

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Rick,

The issue is--did McCain do a proper job of vetting this VP candidate? Are there patterns of untruthful and unethical behavior that went unnoticed? (There are a lot of issues being raised besides "babygate," for instance abuse of power in trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from a state job.) Did McCain ever even consider her foreign policy experience? Or did McCain just go for a pretty face and a compelling (though untrue) story? If she were properly vetted in the first place, we probably wouldn't even be asking these questions.

As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out on his blog--McCain's campaign is the one that put Sarah Palin's private life out there for comment and question by making such a big deal of her supposed fifth child. McCain presented THAT as her qualification for office, and not her foreign policy experience.

Remember Thomas Eagleton? He was the Democrat VP Candidate under McGovern. When it was learned that he'd been treated for depression and that came out in the media and it was suggested that he was not properly vetted, he was forced to resign from the ticket. This was a blow to the McGovern Campaign from which it did not recover.

Steven Webster

Good point. I agree.

And yes, I do remember Thomas Eagleton. Damn. I'm old.

Rick

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Some evangelicals might have a dim view of this, but many evangelicals would probably overlook it because Palin is pro-life. They might also sympathize with her, asking themselves what they would do in her shoes.

The big question is, if the Republicans win in November and McCain dies of a heart attack in December, can Palin negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons?

I agree with Steven: McCain is-ultimately- the one in the hot seat. And his campaign's lack of vetting Palin is probably going to haunt him in the days and weeks to come.

That said, let's think about what good Christian folk would do under the circumstances- that is- a daughter have a child out of wedlock.

Is lying and making a show of that lie to be considered a good thing? I don't think so. For one thing, Palin (of course we will wait for more evidence to come out) could have stood behind her daughter. Instead, what has she down? Treated her daughter as though she has something to be ashamed of. And why is that? Because of her beliefs which supercede her actual relationship with her daughter. In the end, Palin's actions toward her daughter are about the face Palin presents to the world.

So much for truth, love and family values.

To say that Palin was simply trying to protect her daughter is an utter sham. Add a letter to that word and you have shame.

That's what were dealing with here.

You know, it's always the coverup that gets politicians. If only they had the good sense to be the truth-tellers the are always telling us they are.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Daniel

You know, it's always the coverup that gets politicians. If only they had the good sense to be the truth-tellers the are always telling us they are.

Yes. And this is why I'm so disgusted at John Edwards right now.

Rick

[Alecto]

How old is the child in question? I had a friend who was "the child in question" in her family; she grew up calling her biological mother her sister, and her grandparents here parents. If I remember correctly (it's been awhile since we talked about it), they didn't really tell her until she got a little older, which I think is fair.

Also: granted, she wasn't running for public office, but she didn't tell everyone that she met about that quirk of her family. Not even necessarily as a shame thing, but more of a relevance thing.

I don't want to come across as defending this VP candidate, because the truth is I don't know the first hting about her yet. But I'm very ...distraught to be hearing a number of criticisms about irrelevancies, or speculation, when I'm 100% certain there's more legitimate criticism to be made (the in-law-firing, for example, or the lack of experience / qualifications).

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Looks like both Sullivan and Daily Kos are backing off from giving credence to the rumors about Sarah Palin's daughter being the real mother of Sarah Palin's fifth child, Trig. However, Andrew Sullivan would still like to see a little more information. It appears that pictures have come to light that appear to show Sarah Palin pregnant.

Steven W.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Steven E.

Looks like both Sullivan and Daily Kos are backing off from giving credence to the rumors about Sarah Palin's daughter being the real mother of Sarah Palin's fifth child, Trig.

But I just got done spray painting it on the overpass.

Rick

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Looks like both Sullivan and Daily Kos are backing off from giving credence to the rumors about Sarah Palin's daughter being the real mother of Sarah Palin's fifth child, Trig. However, Andrew Sullivan would still like to see a little more information. It appears that pictures have come to light that appear to show Sarah Palin pregnant.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8...16/1017/581734

In light of the other photos taken - which show something else entirely- and the story line itself regarding how she flew back to a little known hospital, I would like to see something like a birth certificate as well as a statement by the attending physician. No doctor is going to risk losing their license over something like this.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but a photo is not sufficient- not when there are more than several showing something else and when photoshop is at the ready. Perhaps a major paper will take this on. That would be helpful.

If Palin has nothing to hide, she will make her hospital records available. If not, she will simply keep the rumours alive.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,
Apparently this has been officially announced by the McCain Campaign in response to the rumors of this weekend.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...l-is-preg.html

Discuss among yourselves.

Steven Webster

[u-dog]

This article is now on Yahoo and reports that Palin/McCain are saying that Bristol is 5 months pregnant and engaged to the baby's father

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/...itics_palin_dc

If Trig was born on April 18th and bristol is 5 months along then she is not Trigs mother. Of course if Bristol suddenly miscarries or the baby is born at 12 months gestation ... we can again begin to wonder about the chronology but I'm thinkin' that this is all going nowhere.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,
Apparently this has been officially announced by the McCain Campaign in response to the rumors of this weekend.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...l-is-preg.html

Discuss among yourselves.

Steven Webster

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...s-pregnant/?hp

The family’s statement said: “Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

I really don't see what this pregnancy has to do with the VP's. They are not the same thing. And it concerns me that it appears- for all intent and purposes- that an effort is being made to stop any inquiry into the matter of the VP's pregnancy.

From the same article...

The announcement was intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Mrs. Palin had claimed to have given birth to her fifth child in April when, according to the rumors, the child was her daughter’s.

[ctozrn]

I am wondering how this will affect their campaign? It would seem to me as a mother, that Mrs. Palin needs to focus her attention to the matters at her home, rather than on the presidential election. I am just saying that if I had a baby with Downs Syndrome and a teenager that was pregnant, my attention would not be in running the country or campaigning. I say this because my partner has a sister with Downs and I know how much attention these children require.

I find this quite ironic that this is happening to the ultra conservative candidate, one that is so evangelical Christian. Not to say that teenagers from Christian families don't get pregnant, I have two teenagers and know how hormones can be! I just find the whole matter rather interesting!

The plot thickens.....

[matthewspeed]

I don't understand. The main argument for the pro choice movement is for women to have control over their own body and no one should interfere with a womens choice.

Ok then, if Sarah Palin, or any other woman for that matter, chooses to have childern at the age of 44, it is their choice. Right??? You can't have it both ways. Either she has her choice or she does not. If Sarah Palin chose to have a child at 44, then she has her right. It is her body, her choice.

Being pro choice is not about being pro abortion. It is about a women deciding to abort when necessary and to give birth when necessary.

I am pro life, but I have many close friends who are extremely pro choice. They support the right for a women to choose either way - to abort or to give birth.