[Max'smom]

Originally Posted by gwenrenee007

Her having a 17 yr old daughter does NOT make her a bad mother or have bad morals, BUT when your stance is no sex-ed and only abstinence it does get a bit interesting. ... Of course she can't control her daughter teens have sex that is why we need sex ed.

This is a main issue: this candidate is against sex ed, as are most on the religious right. Because of this opposition, for the last two terms the US has had a lot of bad policies regarding contraception.

Generally speaking, the US has the highest abortion rate and the highest teen pregnancy rate among advanced industrial nations, many times higher than countries that educate children about sexuality. Due to the aversion the religious right has toward sexual matters, they actually contribute to the root reasons why young people who are having sex in the US are ill informed about what causes pregnancy. Countries that have sex ed and provide scientific information on conception and contraception have actually managed to keep their abortion rates very low. Not by banning abortion. But by teaching kids about sex. That is the why I worry about the Palin approach - abstinence only policies don't stop kids from having sex, but they do make it more likely that kids who do have sex get pregnant and many of those kids end up having abortions needlessly. If they used a condom and foam, there would be no pregnancy.

[Waiting4Celeste]

All this talk about teens (and younger) having sex is starting to make me a little nauseated...

I am not one to put my head in the sand - I was a bit of a "wild-child" so I KNOW what teenagers will do... but I don't want to think about MY kids doing those things!



Anyone know where I can buy a couple of those Chastity belts?! :P

[SKL]

Originally Posted by Max'smom

This is a main issue: this candidate is against sex ed, as are most on the religious right.

We are getting just a little off topic here, but I had to respond to this.

I think it's more accurate to say that the candidate is against certain sex ed material in the school curriculum. Many of us feel this way not because we want our kids to be ignorant, but because we feel the parents are the appropriate people to give our kids this information in the context of whatever values we seek to convey to them.

We have no reason to believe Ms. Palin and/or her husband did not have a birds-and-bees discussion with her daughter, including information about birth control. It doesn't mean her daughter didn't know about condoms (I would find that hard to believe about any American kid), nor even that she wasn't using "protection" most or all of the time. Maybe she's like a number of other young people I know who got pregnant despite having both knowledge of and access to various forms of birth control. Or maybe not. We don't know, and it's none of our business.

If a candidate has a child with mediocre grades, is he unqualified to weigh in on education policy? Can a candidate with a fat child have a valid opinion on health issues?

Just because this young woman (yeah, not a child - I was a sophomore in college at her age) made a choice that her mother wouldn't agree with doesn't invalidate her mother's position.

Of course we can agree to disagree on whether Ms. Palin is right. But unless she has been recorded saying that abstinence-only education in school is a 100% guarantee against teen pregnancy, I feel she's still entitled to her opinion.

[Stormster]

Originally Posted by Max'smom

Countries that have sex ed and provide scientific information on conception and contraception have actually managed to keep their abortion rates very low. Not by banning abortion. But by teaching kids about sex.

Surprisingly, even Italy.

[SKL]

Another point. If we have higher abortion and teen birth rates than other countries, it doesn't mean it's because our teens don't know enough about sexuality. (If that were the case, the rates should have been going down steadily for several decades.) There are other factors at play. Like our youths' relative lack of responsibility for their future. In most countries, kids' decisions to buckle down and study will impact their life career choices by grade ten, and often much sooner. Here, you can "find yourself" at age 30 or 40 and start a whole new career. Our kids also tend to have a lot more freedom, and compared to some countries, we let them grow up a lot faster. Our overall education system isn't the greatest and as a result many of our kids don't have big plans for their future, so they don't have much incentive to respect their bodies in the present. Our laws are relatively lax when it comes to youngsters being victimized sexually by adults, and that often leads to low self-esteem and sexual promiscuity. I'm sure there are other factors in play as well. This issue requires a comprehensive approach that goes far beyond what our kids do with their sex organs. Studies have shown that simply changing the sex education curriculum one way or the other makes no statistical difference.

[Max'smom]

"Studies have shown that simply changing the sex education curriculum one way or the other makes no statistical difference."

I'd be interested to read these studies - which ones and by whom?

[SKL]

Originally Posted by Max'smom

I'd be interested to read these studies - which ones and by whom?

A couple have come out in the past year or two. They were publicized as arguments against abstinence-only education. They showed no statistical difference in pregnancy rates between areas where they have abstinence-only programs versus those that cover contraception, etc. They did find that youngsters wait longer to start having sex if they attend abstinence-only programs.

Unfortunately, I don't have the studies to cite, but I'm sure you would find them if you did a google search.

[MomtoJABE]

I am overwhelmed reading all of this. It amazes me that in this country where we are all so blessed with so many opportunities and freedoms that we are actually even considering that a woman who has a pregnant teenage daughter isn't capable of holding down this job. How many woman do you know that have given up their jobs because their daughters became pregnant or their son got a young woman pregnant? None I know and sadly I come across a lot of families with pregnant teenagers. Some choose to keep their babies, some place them for adoption and others choose to have abortions. But I can honestly say that in all of those situations, I have never known one mother of a pregnant teenager to even consider that it is her obligation to stop working because of the situation.

And while on this subject, I personally feel in my heart and gut that this would never be a topic if Biden had a teenager that was pregnant. Not that I am Republican or Democrat, it should have nothing to do with party affiliation but it seems to. When I look at how far we have come in this country on issues of rights, I am just blown away that this is even a topic. Any woman, Republican or Democrat, should be able to hold down a public office reguardless of her pregnant teenager. And I am sure that if we started looking we would find several. Even the suggestion of this, makes me think we have stepped back 20-30 years in time.

We all have our convictions and beliefs both politically and religiously. We also have families that are not perfect and things will happen with our children no matter how much we try to teach them. They are human and make mistakes and bad choices everyday just like we do.

As the mom of kids from 18 yrs-2 yrs , I can personally testify that I try to teach them every aspect of making good choices based on my personal religious beliefs and also logical, common sense choices to protect themselves for their future and health. But I can also tell you that they have their own minds and decisions to make. As much as I pray they will make wise decisions, they don't always do that.

As a parent of young adults we can't force our ways or decisions on them. You also have to allow them to deal with the consequences of their choices. That is how they grow up and if we stop our lives to try and make everything perfect for them we are only delaying their growing up. They need to realize that with every choice there is a responsibility to accept the outcome. As parents, we can still love and support our children through these things but my personal opinion is that too many children and young adults in our country do not understand this concept of choice and responsibility.

If we look back in our own history, women have been having babies with or without their mother's at their side from the beginning of time. Not so long ago the average age for marrying and giving birth was the teenage years. Don't misunderstand what I am saying here please. I am not saying I agree with teenage pregnancy. Personally, I am thankful she is choosing to give this child life. Secondly, I am thankful to read that her fiance had proposed to her before she was pregnant,not that it really matters. At least it seems they truly love each other and my hope and prayer is that they will have a wonderful family and life together.

I guess I just feel that this young woman is totally capable of making her own decisions (that seems obvious by the ones she already made) therefore she is capable of living through the consequences. As much as it seems her parents love and support her, it is ultimately her and her fiances responsibility to make their lives and decisions on how they will live and raise their child.

I guess what I don't get here is why people think it is her mother's responsibility to give up her career or step down from a position because the daughter made the choice to be where she is. I am not meaning to sound disrespectful towards anyones opinion or stance politically. I really just don't see why in our country we are not allowing our teenagers and young adults to accept responsibility for their choices and then accept the consequences that come with them. It isn't her mother's fault that she became pregnant. It doesn't mean that her parents didn't teach her about abstinence or birth control. It also doesn't mean that birth control wasn't used.

Sorry this is so long.......not trying to be on a soapbox but I just try and put myself in this families position. None of us can know how we would handle this unless we have walked in their shoes, we also have no idea how or what they taught their children in the privacy of their own home.

I take a strong stance against many things but that doesn't mean that my children will always agree with me or choose not to do some of those things. We are all human, make mistakes, and have our personal choices to live with!!

Again,not leaning toward one party or the other or trying to step on anyones toes but...........I think her personal experiences with her family(special needs child, child in military, pregnant daughter, etc) make her more real to me. She deals with the same things that I do as a mother and person. She doesn't seem to need to make their life look perfect on the outside for anyone.

I don't agree with everything politically for any of the presidential or vice presidential candidates but in an attempt to actually answer this thread, hehehe ,
as a mother and a person I like her.

[MomtoJABE]

On the issue of her speech, again not taking any political sides here, it has always been the job of the vice presidential nominee to give that type of speech. The VP speech in both parties is suppose to be the charge, firing up type of speech that leads to the presidential nominee's acceptance(Edited: and too bad today that always means attacking the other side). The Pres. nominee then comes in with the hope and future part. For the most part, with a few exceptions, if you look back over time that is the purpose and why they take those approaches.

That is as old as the convention themselves and takes place on both sides!!!

[Wonk]

I do believe that a woman can be president just like a man. No question. There is no aspect of the job that requires the male anatomy.

The problem with Sarah Palin though is the hypocrisy. She argues that she is pro-family and promotes how important family is but at the same time wants a job that will take 24/7 for years. You can't be touting how much family means and then basically abandoning her family. Other candidates are at least honest that it means sacrificing time with their family rather than trying to sell that they are "pro-family".

Palin doesn't believe in sex education and surprise, her kid got pregnant. In some ways, it is inviting the problem. To the woman who said that people who are anti-sex ed believing that it should be left up to parents, the problem is that some parents are good about this stuff and some are not and you are left with some kids knowing a lot and some nothing. That is why you need to give every kid a basic understanding of how things work. It is a bit like immunization.

One of my problems with the "pro-lifers" is that they never think beyond the birth of the child. I question how "pro-life" having a seventeen year old daughter getting married and raising a baby is, especially if the mother is going to basically be out of the picture to help her. That child is going to be raised by children. With parents with high school educations. Which most likely means poverty in this country. Or maybe they can try to get more education but that means someone has to pay for daycare, which they won't be able to afford on high school education jobs. So, really, in the end, how pro-life is it sentencing a kid to that kind of upbringing?

As to the question of whether sex ed is effective or not, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S. males have initiated vaginal sex. Here are some studies that show that sex ed works:

Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001.

Kirby D et al. Impact of Sex and HIV Education
Programs on Sexual Behaviors of Youth in Developing and Developed Countries. [Youth Research Working Paper, No. 2] Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International, 2005.

Alford S. Science and Success: Sex Education and Other Programs that Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2003.

And abstinence only programs do not work. Here are some studies:

Santelli J et al. Abstinence and abstinence-only education: a review of U.S. policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent Health 2006; 38(1):72-81.

Hauser D. Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact [Title V State Evaluations] Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004.

Committee on HIV Prevention Strategies in the United States, Institute of Medicine. No Time to Lose: Getting More from HIV Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

Society for Adolescent Medicine. Abstinence-only education policies and programs: a position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health 2006; 38(1):83-87.

SIECUS. SIECUS State Profiles: a Portrait of Sexuality Education and Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in the States. New York: Author, 2004.

[stephjoel99]

Tammy, your post was right on the money. :-) :-)

[Waiting4Celeste]

I'm having a hard time with the argument that pro-family = mothers not working.

I just don't believe that this is the case for EVERY family. Some moms (and dads) are working in fields that honor families and help build strong families. Advocating for families as a VP could be pro-family. I won't assume that because she works in a high-profile job that she won't be home at night to be with her family. Yes, I am sure that there will be times when she travels and is away from them, but there are many parents who travel and are away from their children.

Do we really know how much time it takes to be a VP? Will she REALLY be spending 24/7 away from her family?

I have a friend who works many hours, has her kid bounced between various baby-sitters/day care after school, leaves him with grandparents on weekends and for weeks during the summer and just doesn't spend a lot of time with her own son. (her husband also works a lot of hours, but tends to spend more time with their son) And she ISN'T a VP! Should I go tell her that she shouldn't work because it isn't very "pro-family"? No - because it is none of my business. She is the one to choose her career over her family. I know that she prides herself on having a great career, so it is her choice on where she spends her time. If it was the other way around and her husband was working so much, would we even be questioning it? Probably not.

OK, and I KNOW that it IS our business what the VP is doing - at WORK. It really isn't our business how she handles her family because we are "hiring" her to do the job of VP. I doubt she just jumped into this position without a lot of thinking and planning of how they would juggle it all.

PS I just think of how cool it would be to grow up in a family where MY MOM was the VP when I was a child/teen!!

[SKL]

Mothering isn't all about who is physically caring for the kids. Personally I feel that my most important mothering responsibility is giving my kids a vision of what it means to be a woman in the US. I work many hours, including off hours when they are playing around my feet. I sometimes leave them to go to work, other times I have a nanny care for them downstairs while I work upstairs, other times I take them with me.

My kids are learning how I view myself as a woman. I am a person who puts their needs absolutely first, but not to the exclusion of everything else. They see me negotiating, solving problems, planning, furthering my agenda through respectful yet effective means, prioritizing, and knowing when to turn it on and off. I show them that I choose my own path, and live with the results of my choices. They see that part of my time goes toward easing the problems of other people. They will internalize these things and their self-image will be impacted as a result.

The other day, I saw an April interview of Ms. Palin in various aspects of her day. Her kids were in much of the interview. She appears to have a pretty normal family life as governor of a state. I know people can always put on an act, but seeing her seven-year-old daughter interacting with her in the interview was telling. Little kids don't act. They were interacting exactly as I would want my kids to interact with me, regardless of whatever job I might hold.

I don't know how much different the VP job will be than the governorship. In my view, it most likely won't be as different as some people charge. Righ now she is in a "buck stops here" role 24/7. Although Alaska is a small state populationwise, it is about a third of the US land mass, has real safety issues (anyone remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill?), national security issues (it borders Canada and practically touches the east of Russia), and many other concerns. Despite doing a great job in this position by any objective measure, she has a real relationship with her kids. And her three daughters are growing up with a really healthy view of what it means to be a woman, in my opinion.

Maybe my view is somewhat impacted by the fact that I am a single working mom. I don't have a Todd around to pick up the slack when my job responsibilities get heavy (and they do!). I don't pretend that my job is as demanding as Ms. Palin's or the VP's, but I'm only half as big as her parenting team (with a lot less experience!). If there were 2 of me and I had 19 years of parenting experience, I believe I could work that hard and still be a great parent. (I'm an extreme introvert so I'd never want the VP post, but Ms. Palin doesn't seem to have that problem.)

[Wonk]

I think the difference for me as far as being a "working mom" is that being president isn't a job. Being president is being the most powerful person on the planet and that is all consuming overwhelming having your time scheduled in five minute increments from when you wake up until you fall asleep lifestyle choice.

It isn't like you have several hours a day you can put off making decisions about strategic nuclear warhead placement to go to your kid's music recital. That's why Michelle Obama already said that her first concern and last concern every day is her kids, because she said that Barak is doing things that are important for the world so she needs to take care of her family. But you haven't heard that from Palin's husband. You haven't heard him step up and say that he is going to be the primary parent if Palin is elected. If fact, you haven't heard anything from Palin's husband, who is used to going hunting for a month every year and not being the primary parent. I expect that we won't hear anything from Palin's husband in the end.

[adoptnky]

Originally Posted by Wonk

It isn't like you have several hours a day you can put off making decisions about strategic nuclear warhead placement to go to your kid's music recital. That's why Michelle Obama already said that her first concern and last concern every day is her kids, because she said that Barak is doing things that are important for the world so she needs to take care of her family. But you haven't heard that from Palin's husband. You haven't heard him step up and say that he is going to be the primary parent if Palin is elected. If fact, you haven't heard anything from Palin's husband, who is used to going hunting for a month every year and not being the primary parent. I expect that we won't hear anything from Palin's husband in the end.

I think I saw the same program that SKL is talking about. This was a "documentary" (I'm using that term pretty loosly) that was filmed in the spring (just before Trig was born). They mentioned that Mr. Palin is a Mr. Mom.

If Mr. Palin said that he was going to be the "stay at home" parent taking care of the kids, would everyone feel better? (and I'm not just asking Wonk) If not, then this screams of sexism.

I still don't understand why we think that she can't handle a job (yes, I high profile job) and being a mom.

So, I guess what many people are saying is that all women need to leave their careers behind until all of their children are out of the house. At that point we can then strive for our career goals. Anything else that we might want isn't right.

I have a high stress job. I made a decision to switch roles after Alex came home. I now work 3 days a week, and I'm very happy with the arrangement I have with my employer.

I would hate to think that I wouldn't get support if I had made a different decision. I would be working 5 days a week and traveling (mostly overnight trips) at least 10-15 days a month. Would I be a bad mother?

I really need to stop reading these threads because they just make me so mad at the double standard that I didn't think I needed to argue with other mothers.

Kim