Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Moore on Palin

Yesterday I said there wasn't much anyone should say about Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant apart from the fact she had a bloody stupid name. But others have raised points that put it in a new perspective - looking at the timing and the sudden announcement of marriage, in particular.

Michael Moore:

One hour after Gustav hit land, the McCain campaign announced that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant. I don't want to say much more beyond this, as I agree with Barack Obama that "people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits."

I do feel very sorry that this minor, this child, now has to have her privacy sacrificed because her mother accepted an offer to run for VP. Obama's right -- the children are off limits. I remember when John McCain cruelly trashed Chelsea Clinton when she was a child in the White House. He told reporters that she was "ugly" "because Janet Reno is her father." Of course, McCain would like us now to accord Palin's daughter the respect he wouldn't give Chelsea.

This does not mean that a discussion about the stupidity of "abstinence-only" sex ed classes is off the table; nor should we not talk about the right of a teenager to terminate a pregnancy (a right that has been essentially eliminated as the Supreme Court believes forcing a child to have a child against its will is not a form a child abuse), or Gov. Palin's desire to make abortion illegal for anyone who is raped, a victim of incest or who may die if they bring the fetus to term.

Septicisle, whom I must congratulate on being named 18th best left-leaning blog in Britain by inventor of the internet Iain Dale, has more:

Quite aside from whether this is her daughter's own wishes and whether getting married at 17 is even anything resembling a good idea, it also rather exposes Palin's opposition to same-sex marriage, which she detests to such an extent that she supported a constitutional amendment which would have denied state health benefits to same-sex couples. The familiar argument against it is that it debases marriage and the sanctity of the institution; what more actually offends the institution than shotgun weddings in this day and age, either to appease a Christian conservative base or to spare a vice-presidential candidate's potential blushes?

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

No related posts.