The news that Bristol Palin's teen lover will join the family tonight at the RNC convention brings to mind a staggering thought: they truly do not see any contradiction or irony in publicly celebrating this teen couple, clearly not abstinent themselves, while simultaneously promoting abstinence-only education as the only acceptable approach for every last one of us? While I wish the two teens all the best, I have most emphatically told my own 17-year-old daugther that while the Republicans find it more admirable to get pregnant than to get on the honor roll before leaving high school, those are NOT our family's values. She has my full permission to become one of the 'elite' educated in our society or, if the attacks on those with an education escalate, another society less intent on publicly mocking the education of its citzens as a national value.

Good for you, but what would you do if your daughter came to you and said she was pregnant and that she and her boyfriend were in love and wanted to get married? Would you welcome the boy into your home as part of your family? Would you say, "you are one of us now"? This is how I interpret her decision to have the kid join them in D.C. It is for her daughter's sake that Palin has done this, as she knows her daughter loves this boy and wants him to be accepted as her future husband.

Or she's forcing her daughter and the boyfriend to marry to serve her own political and religious impulses.

Most people, on BOTH sides feel that the daugher and her boyfriend should NOT be made into a side show and that the media should respect their privacy.

So I'm not buying that they are inviting the boyfriend just to welcome him into the family. Yes that MIGHT be true but this being politics I find it hard to believe.

McCain's staff and the GOP are using these teens for political purposes. If they want punks like the DailyKos to back off then the GOP should have these teen remain low key.

I would react exactly as Governor Palin has. My point, however, was that they see no contradiction in shoving a particular philosophy (abstinence-only education) down everyone's throats and ignorning the evidence, standing right next to them, that their approach isn't foolproof. No approach is, and if they would rather their children remain ignorant and continue to take risks with their health, it is not my place to say they can't. But how dare they tell me that their approach is so superior that no other can be considered! And that I as a parent am somehow morally inferior if I allow my child to hear the (gasp!) reality that contraceptives can prevent unwanted pregnancy No, as usual, it's their way or the highway. Bristol Palin is fortunate that her family has the means (and that she has a family) to support her. Many, many teens are not so fortune and (surprise!) they become the welfare moms that Republicans used to love to use as punching bags, back when that was an effective wedge issue.

As a social liberal I'm 100% pro-choice and have worked hard to ensure every female has the right of choice.

Welfare moms are NOT being responsible if they have children without the skills, education and other financial resources to provide for them. (of course the man involved is part of ensuring financial resources).

In other words society gives welfare moms many options to prevent future children; access to birth control (often paid for by the state), aboption, and abortion.

Welfare moms should use these options instead of having a kid and then expecting society to pay for the child care.

Your analysis of the cynical hypocrisy at work here is spot on. Just one slight terminological correction in advance of the trolls who can't otherwise refute your argument.

No sex-ed prgram approach is "foolproof" and to be fair, I have heard few mainstream conservatives claiming it to be so BUT... the abstinance-only approach has been a quantifiable failure according to the federal gov'ts own data. Saletan has written extensively on this for Slate and has provided links to all the data--easily found with a site search.

Jazzguitarman, thanks for being honest. I think you express many people's perspective regarding this issue. In doing so you point out clearly that you do not see matters of procreation as personal or a woman's choice only. When taken to its logical conclusion, it appears you would advocate that the state use economic coercion on "welfare mothers" to unsure that they "choose" do the "responsible" thing. Choice is such bs when it comes to reproductive issues. A woman may be very happy to have a child but her partner is not, so she "chooses" to abort or loses her relationship or vice versa. She may believe that abortion is wrong or would rather not all things being equal, but the stigma of unwed parenthhod is so great that it tips the scales in the direction to abort. It seems that this choice that is touted as the quinessential female perogative is really much less a choice and more a "sophies' choice".

"In other words society gives welfare moms many options to prevent future children; access to birth control (often paid for by the state), aboption, and abortion."

This is why I am so opposed to Gov. Palin's attempts to take sex ed out of the schools, eliminated state sponsored birth control, and support for teen mothers.

I agree that Palin and the policies she supports only LIMIT the number of options for women. Just another reason to reject the McCain \ Palin ticket.

If a women thinks abortion is wrong (thus she would never have one) than she should take extra care to NOT get pregrant unless she can be financially responsible IF she happens to get pregrant.

BUT do NOT assume I support economic coercion in order to compel a women to do the responsible thing. I do NOT believe the state should force a women to either have an abortion OR have the baby. But I do support sterilization of those on state assistance.