Dan Cody - “Left on the Lake” » Babies Having Babies vs. Normal American Family

Babies Having Babies vs. Normal American Family

Can anyone explain the difference between the following scenarios?

Teenager A gets pregnant out of wedlock and chooses to give birth. Is heralded as a “a normal American family with all the joys and problems” by right-wing.

Teenager B gets pregnant out of wedlock and chooses to give birth. Is decried as “baby having a baby” by right-wing.

It’s a rhetorical question of course. I doubt we’ll hear talk radio hosts bringing up the subject of “babies having babies” for the next several months though.

I don’t want to get into the relevant current events surrounding the issue, I just thought it was an interesting juxtaposition in family values in light of recent events. The fact is teenager girls becoming pregnant is a major problem in the County and one we should all be working to address.

Politics | Dan Cody | September 2, 2008 9:38 pm

12 Comments

By Go Celtics, September 3, 2008 @ 6:54 am

Well there is a slight difference, if this is a mistake made by a young woman and a yong man who are going to marry; and a culture that accepts “babies having babies” where the mothers routinely treat the babies like the latest accessory and the father is not expected to and has no interest in sticking around, practices that severely exacerbate the cycle of poverty.

You do understand the subtle difference, right?
By Marybeth, September 3, 2008 @ 12:08 pm

And don’t forget that if that Teenager B is also African-American…….oooohhh boy, would the critics start circling their wagons.

I am following Obama wishes and not talking about Palin’s kids….it IS a private matter.

I will report this…..Checklist for Selecting an Effective Sex Education Curriculum

Delivers and consistently reinforces the clear message that students should make the decision to either abstain from sexual activity or use condoms and other forms of contraception

Provides accurate information about the effectiveness of abstinence, contraception and condom use to reduce unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections including HIV

Provides “how to” information on contraception and on ways to avoid sexual activity

Supports abstinence as a positive choice rather than a fear and shame based choice

Includes activities that address social pressures that influence sexual behavior

Provides examples of and practice with communication, negotiation and refusal skills

Employs teaching methods designed to involve participants and have them personalize the information

Incorporates behavioral goals, teaching methods and materials that are appropriate to the age, sexual experience, and culture of the students.

Avoids bias based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, income, disability or other issues

Lasts a sufficient length of time(i.e more than a few hours or days)

Engages teachers and peer leaders who believe in the program and had a role in its selection; provides them with adequate training.

Teaches about making decisions based on assessing personal values and goals as well as objective information about risk

Promotes parent-student communication

Teaches how to recognize and address violent or exploitative relationships

Excerpted from “Sex Education: A Guide for Curriculum Selection” published by Illinois Consortium on Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (www.icapp.info) and Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health (www.icah.org). 2003.

If Gov Palin does not want Sex Education taught in schools, because she believes that it coerces kids, yes, kids into having sex then she’s missing the boat. She should be relieved beyond relief that her daughter and other ‘girls’ in the same situation as her daughter, did not infected with the AIDS virus, some STD, or violently pressured into something they may not have truly wanted to engage in.

Sex Education talks to youth about issues of self-esteem, and personal worth, and caring for one’s body. Sexual Intercourse is only one aspect of Sex Ed. To say that all Sexual Education courses are wrong (as Palin does) is a HUGE disservice to young adults everywhere. She NEEDS to get into the 21st century. She does more HARM than good.
By Jill, September 3, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

Go Celtics,

17-year-olds are too young to become parents, whether they are rich or poor, black or white. I don’t think these kids were engaged before she got pregnant.

So, if I were to sterotype this from the other side, I might say that Bristol Palin is just another uneducated white girl from a redneck state who believes that she will somehow get lucky and not get pregnant when she fools around with her boyfriend. But it will all be ok when they decide to get married (suddenly he’s an upstanding young man instead of just another teenage horndog), move into his mamma’s trailer, and start to collect welfare.

Oh….I get it now, it’s ok because the last 2 parts of that don’t apply to this case :-)

So in your mind, this “young woman” made a “mistake.” How would she even know it was a mistake with no education about the subject whatsoever? Lots of other “young women,” who may happen to be from the inner city, make “mistakes” as well, but whether it was intentional or not, they get put into the category of “babies having babies.” Is the culture that glorifies that wrong? Sure. But so is everybody’s acceptance of it as a good thing when it happens to a nice upstanding white girl. I can’t believe how the evangelicals are eating this all up. What happened to the Purity Pledge and all that?

And by the way, when people call unplanned babies a “mistake,” they are usually pounced upon by the right.

Bristol Palin is lucky that she will have family support through this. Not only is she facing motherhood, but the work of a new marriage, which is hard enough without kids.
By Go Celtics, September 3, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

Mary Beth and Jill, I agree with you completely. The hypocrisy from the right would solve our energy issue if it could be harnessed.
By Sean, September 4, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

Let’s be honest, regardless of color, race, or economic status, teenagers having children is by definition “babies having babies”. Saying that is not a slight, it is a fact, and one that (as Jill and Marybeth have explained) should be delved into further. Why are teenagers still having babies, how do we curb this issue, or better yet stop it completely???

Education is important, and if done in the fashion that Marybeth laid out, would have an impact. But here’s the bigger issue, and one that is much more difficult to get our hands around and that is parenting. Admittedly, we cannot completely control our kids behavior, but we have a duty as parents (black, white, latino, asian, etc) to discuss this with our children, and teach them what is right and what is wrong - safe and unsafe. Hopefully this was discussed in the Palin household (I’m sure to some extent it was - and went unheeded), so education on many fronts is necessary. Parents sitting down with their kids and discussing this is not going to solve all of the problems. More than one solution is often needed to solve issues such as this, but parental involvement is key, and unfortunately the cycle in poorer communities is more prevalant than in other communities.

To rail on the right for taking a difference stance is wrong. Are they doing it for political purposes??? Probably, but if we are going to try and tackle these problems we have to work together. By asking questions like “I can’t believe how the evangelicals are eating this all up. What happened to the Purity Pledge and all that?” only enflames and alienates people that previously had held differing or opposing views than your’s and in the long run does nothing to solve this problem.
By Jill, September 4, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

Sean,

When you say that there is a parenting component to this problem, I agree (although as the parent of a teenager myself, I can say that the best attempts at teaching your kids doesn’t always work). But if we did say that in this case, there would be a visceral reaction because we would be talking about Sarah Palin’s parenting. In the past, many on the right have railed against others in this situation (my favorite was Bill O’Reilly all over Lynne Spears a few months ago over her pregnant daughter) who are now saying “Awww, isn’t this just great?” It’s not great, and my reaction is about that fact that suddenly a good thing because it’s happened to the lily white daughter of a evangelical family.

So I stand by my statement - not mean to enflame - that I can’t believe the evangelicals are eating this up. It is something they were plainly opposed to just a few months ago, but now that it’s one of them it has become not only acceptable, but a “miracle.” If there were consistency applied to this situation - that the parents and “the culture” are to blame for this - then it wouldn’t even be an issue.

I agree with you that this problem must be solved on many fronts - and in my mind that includes factual sex education provided to our children. If people don’t want their kids to participate, I don’t have a problem with them opting out. But there are a lot of people who actually do want it taught to their kids (in addition to parental involvement) and, sadly, a whole bunch more who don’t care. Those are the kids that need it most. And they need more information than “don’t have sex.” That is now being scientifically proven not to work. Abstinence is part of any good sex education program, but it is only a part. Having factual information on birth control helps those, some who probably think they will abstain (like Bristol, I assume), who eventually decide to have sex anyway.

I myself got the full-blown public school sex ed program in high school (a long, long time ago). The first thing that always came up, whether in regards to pregnancy or STDs, was that you could totally avoid those things if you didn’t have sex in the first place (i.e., abstinence). But if you do have sex, here’s the information you need.

So why the big sex-ed discussion? Because Sarah Palin wants abstinence-only sex education. Clearly proven ineffective in this case. If she’s dealing with it in her own family, bully for her, but what about the rest of the “babies having babies”?

And, oh, I haven’t even heard anyone getting fired up that the state is paying for Bristol’s health care through all of this…
By Marybeth, September 5, 2008 @ 9:53 am

Hi Jill,

I spoke to a woman yesterday who has 1 teenage boy and 2 teenage daughters. She was highly offended by how this teen pregnancy has now turned into something that is ‘ok’ and ‘acceptable.’ Since when is teenage pregnancy acceptable? When it’s the daughter of the running mate of McCain………yet if it was Obama’s daughter, 10 years from now, a teenager and pregnant, whoa nellie! Stop the presses!!! These same evangelicals would pounce all over her.

Abstinence only sex education does not work. End of story.

I just wonder what the teenage ‘horndog’s” [thank you Jill...I love that phrase!] next girlfriend [or future 2nd wife] will say about that tattoo on his ring finger.
By Sean, September 5, 2008 @ 11:09 am

Jill,

As I mentioned in my original comment, I am sure the Palin’s had conversations with Bristol regarding sex, and it obviously went unheeded. I am all too aware of a teenager’s ability to ignore what parents say. Just because a teenager gets pregnant, doesn’t mean you’re a bad parent, unless you have ignored that discussion, which I’m sure the Palin family did not. My point is there are a large percentage of parents, mostly from poorer communities, that don’t have those conversations. I’m not discounting sex-ed, especially when it is laid out in a comprehensive academic fashion, along with the ability to opt out, but my feeling is, if parents don’t engage their children regarding this issue, all of the sex ed in the world probably will not help.

Also, when engaging people that have different views as yourself, (in this case, sex-ed and the Republicans decision to sweep it under the rug for so many years) it really doesn’t help to “call people out”, ie: evangelicals - by questioning why they’re embracing this young woman. I asked the rhetorical question before (Is it being done for political reasons? Probably.), and as I think about it, I figure, instead of asking questions like “Why are the evangelicals eating this up?”, maybe we should be asking how do WE fix this problem? Casting aspersions, as I mentioned early, does nothing to 1) include those that, for years, opposed sex-ed and 2) solve the problem.

Marybeth,

As long as we’re dealing in hypothetical’s “yet if it was Obama’s daughter, 10 years from now, a teenager and pregnant, whoa nellie! Stop the presses!!! These same evangelicals would pounce all over her.”
How would the left have treated Palin, if they found out Bristol was pregnant and she was never seen in public with her family? Oh…..I can tell you how it would play out. The media, lefty blogs, and the moveon.org’s of the world would lambaste her for not supporting her child when she made a mistake, because it didn’t fit into Palin’s sex-ed ideology. She’d also be portrayed as an unsupportive mother, who cares nothing for her family by sweeping this under the rug. (Amongst other smear campaigns.) Instead of dealing with things that have not, and probably will not happen, why don’t you embrace the fact that there may be a possibility of bringing the “other side” in to help solve this problem?
By Marybeth, September 5, 2008 @ 8:05 pm

Sean,

Of course the media would be all over Sarah. That’s what the media does.

Since we’re dealing with hypotheticals….if the evangelicals and republicans found out Bristol was pregnant and she was never seen in public with her family, I wonder how ‘they’ would have treated her?

As far as letting the ‘other side’ in, is the ‘other side’ abstinence, in your mind?

Even a little bit of education is better than telling kids (kids with hormones running amok) to ‘just say no.’

And I’m painting a broader picture here, Sean, about sex education. It’s more than just ’sexual intercourse.’ And I know you know that.
By Jill, September 5, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

Sean,

I’ve got no problem with everybody working together here to solve the problem. Unfortunately, there are those, including Sarah Palin, who see only one answer - abstinence education. It quite obviously doesn’t work, not only for Bristol, but for many others, and the studies are bearing out that abstinence-based education does not result in any difference in whether teens have sex or not. The difference is that those teens do not have the information about sexual health that they would have gotten in a comprehensive program.

So I guess the difference between me and the “other side” on this issue is that I respect the right of parents to decide whether they want their kids in a comprehensive program, and the “other side” believes that those comprehensive programs are wrong - for everybody. That ignores the sad reality in this country, and in many families - even those that are mostly healthy and functional. My parents never ever talked to me about sex. They were great parents. It just wasn’t something they did, for whatever reason. And I’m only speaking for myself here, but having the facts from the sex ed program did, at some point in my life, did help. Because I got the information I needed from someone else but my parents, just like I did about a lot of other things, like how to cook (sorry mom).

I could go on and on about how eventually uneducated teenagers grow up to become uneducated young and older adults, as well, but it doesn’t need to go on. The base point here is that fundamentalists believe that they have the only right way. I don’t believe that you think that way, and so I’m having a hard time understanding why you seem to identify with them on this issue. Because I’ve never said that the Palins are bad parents, or that Bristol is a bad girl, but that their views on their personal situation are incongruous with their views of the same situation as it applies to others.
By Marybeth, September 6, 2008 @ 10:28 am

Hey Jill, My parents never talked to me about sex either. AND, sex education or even a health course, was not offered in my high school when I attended, many many moons ago.

And boy, looking back now….I wish I had that opportunity for that class!
By Sean, September 8, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

Marybeth & Jill,

The “other side” that I refer to are the social conservatives that may now see that there needs to be an open discussion regarding this issue instead of digging their heals in the sand and not wavering from their position. I happen to be one of those people, that because I never had an issue with pregnancy or STD’s and personally practiced abstinence, that abstinence education was the proper direction. Over the years, I have realized there are those less fortunate than I, and have witnessed “babies having babies” and the struggles that go along with that…Unfortunately, when faced with the ‘I told you so’ attitudes, or hearing/reading questions like “why are evangelicals (or social conservatives) eating this up?” people get a little defensive, and possibly more entrenched in a bad position. Not the position they SHOULD take, but with politics and the policies that are associated with them the way they are, it’s almost human nature that people react that way.

As for the Palin household, I would hope that because of their daughter’s mistake, they will take a different tone. There are ways of discussing matters like this, but the fact remains that parents talking to children about sex (and drugs, and alcohol, etc) is imperative. Open and honest discussions is important especially when you DO bring up the long term effects - bad parents or at the very least silent parents, bring up the same attitudes and practices in their children.

As for the hypotheticals, I’m going to give a quick answer and then revert to my overriding position - Answer: they would probably be just fine, they certainly wouldn’t be “going after her” like the left is….Position: I’m going to concentrate on things that are current, and that is limiting the amount of “babies having babies”.