Yeah, but during that time, the teen years were more borderline adult years. Now, sociologically speaking, teen years are associated more closely with childhood and it's not until people are in their 20's that they get the chance to be considered adults.
Typically, the religious views behind pro-life also push for "no sex until marriage" and this doesn't obviously isn't the case.Yes, some kids have sex no matter what, but IMHO, this is also the result of a too busy, overachiever mama who doesn't have time to connect with her teenage daughter issue. I'm not even gonna mention the need that the baby has for his mother, especially with DS and she's obviously so busy that her position takes her away from her child at 5 days.
I'm not either pro-life or pro-choice, as I see both sides. If Roe vs. Wade had been a year earlier, there would be no OrganicMama, but I do not agree with the extreme viewpoints of the pro-life side. The issue lies much earlier and deeper than that, something that I don't think the religious right wants to deal with, like openly teaching our children (especially daughters) about respecting their bodies and about simple biology. Teenage sex will still happen, but at least the informed knowedge & choice is there.
Feeling bad for Bristol and the rest of Palin's kids right now. An uninvolved, extra busy mother leaves plenty of room for things like this.
Cil, I agree with you and DemoLady totally. Maybe Govervor Palin's attitude toward honest sex education in high school is partially to blame for her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy. I mean hormones are hormones, and we need to explain to kids what is actually happening in their own bodies and minds. Abstinence-only programs are the equivilent of loaded guns aimed directly at the youth of our nation. I had very explicit sex education taught to me in high school in the '60s and it kept me from making some very destructive decisions. One good choice I made due to a good education regarding sex was waiting a little longer to engage in sexual activity. Burying your head in the sand won't accomplish the goal intended by the proponents of this policy...it is well proven that it only exacerbates the problem.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL! My point is that being a mom, giving birth to a child with DS and going back to work 5 days later demonstrates a mother who values her position more than her children's needs. It has nothing to do with being a mom and having a career. I am all for that.
You're on witchhunt for sexism. How the hell can I be sexist when I am a woman with 3 children of my own, starting my own business???? However, I am also looking out for the needs of my kids, as most mothers with careers do. There is a reason for women wanting 12 week leave for kids and for other countries actually giving a year leave to working mothers. Newborn babies need their mothers. Is that sexist?
How the hell can I be sexist when I am a woman with 3 children of my own, starting my own business???? However, I am also looking out for the needs of my kids, as most mothers with careers do. There is a reason for women wanting 12 week leave for kids and for other countries actually giving a year leave to working mothers. Newborn babies need their mothers. Is that sexist?
