This poll isn’t about Sarah Palin and her daughter’s pregnancy. Not directly. The Republicans and Obama rightly agree that her children (and of all politicians) should be off limits. How candidates raised them is not as it goes to what kind of person they are, their beliefs, and so on.
No, this poll is about the more general question of what should be private and personal relative to government intervention. As the poster on reddit who’s item prompted my post put it: “I agree with the Repubs, daughter’s pregnancy is private, just as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and recreational drug use are private matters that should be beyond government and politics.”
Do you agree with that sentiment? Given the Republicans are (or used to be) about freedom from government intrusion, should the government not police drug use (other than when it does affect others such as DUI), try to legislate abortion, who marries whom, end of life decisions by lucid, rational individuals and other private, personal and family matters? Should the government be involved in what a person does to and with themselves and does consensually to and with others? Should the individual have true freedom from government intrusion in the privacy of their home or should the government, often based on the religious tenants of the legislators, be able to regulate how one lives or dies?
Sound off!
Good post #12, I’d like to add.
When I read the focal comment in the post about the 6 issues my common sense alert o meter pegs. I think that on the face of this question, yes these are all private matters but there are some differences.
There are two ways to see each one of these issues. You could have each one ‘somewhere in the persons family’. That should be private. The only real reason to make it an issue is to imply character problems on the person (for things done by someone else?).
On the other hand, if the person is DOING any of these then that’s not necessarily private. If the person is pregnant and the father isn’t the husband or if the person is using recreational drugs, if the person is in a gay marriage, if the person commits euthanasia (ok, maybe an exception), if the person has an abortion.
And even then, I’m interested in what they have to say about such things. Maybe this was far in their past and they have lessons to teach others about these things. Perhaps they have learned and these things aren’t part of their character any longer so it’s not relevant.
My assumption here is for someone running for high office. I guess my vote is private if these behaviors are from someone else but not private is the person is actively engaging in these behaviors.
One last thing, just because something is not private doesn’t mean they should be subjected to the unethical invasions the media thinks is it’s prerogative. What are you doing and what do you say about it is all that’s necessary, how does following all of a persons friends help this?
#41 – Sounds reasonable.
# 18 bodiddlie said,
“Questions like these are not asked anywhere near enough in my mind. They bring to light the inherent flaws in the two party system that exists in this country.
……..”
I am in the unusual position (for me, that is) of having to say, I agree with everything you said.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“So is Sarah Palin news? YES! Because her and her Christian conservatives are pushing abstanance only education, … drivel … drivel .. drivel”
Wrong. And here is why, what you are claiming is that since her daughter is an idiot, that its obviously her fault. That makes no sense.
My mother taught many of the same beliefs that that Sarah Palin teaches her kids. I am the oldest, turned out fine went to collage, didn’t get anyone pregnant. My brother after me however, got 2 girls pregnant, went to jail for drugs, and never graduated, and managed this before he even turned 18. My other two sisters, and my other brother turned out fine as well. Does this mean that my mother’s teaching were wrong, or that she is somehow unqualified to be a mother now? No, it means my brother was an idiot, who did stupid things. Either because he wanted to look cool for his friends, or he was just greedy.
So this is indeed a private matter, if Palin had encouraged her daughter to have an abortion, then that would have been newsworthy since it would have been hypocritical of her.
The daughter is not the issue, nor should she be. Unfortunately, her mother has chosen to use her to forward her political career.
The mother’s hypocrisy and deception are the true issues here. She would deny other mothers and daughters the option of making the choice which is best for their family in similar circumstances, and that is what makes this an appropriate subject for public scrutiny and debate. And worse, by denying access to appropriate sex education and contraception, she would condemn many more young women to unwanted pregnancies.
Claiming a right to privacy for her family is offensive when she would not honor the privacy of mine.
#46 “Unfortunately, her mother has chosen to use her to forward her political career. ”
Really? When did that happen?
#28 – A “recreational” meth user????
Huh?
When she locked the kid in the house for 5 months or however long it was; when she claimed the girl’s baby as her own; when she required this girl to carry the infant to hide her pregnancy, and whatever deceptive actions she has required of Bristol to keep her career on track.
The main problem with recreational drug use is overuse or improper handling.
When that happens it harms everyone.
To have two glasses of wine a DAY would be fine and have benefical effect. (So too would be just plain grape juice)
But when it becomes drunkeness, it becomes a problem to everyone.
Cursor_
During the election, I think it’s all fair game. But what you publish in your paper/blog/website or air on the radio or television goes 100% toward your brand image.
For instance the Palin pregnancy stuff. If you have pics of the boy who got the VP’s daughter pregnant on the front page of your site(HuffingtonPost) then your brand is scum and your up there with National Enquirer.
If your writing an editorial about how the pregnancy ties in with her views on abortion, and how that might affect your vote, then you have a little more political cred.
If you ignore pregnant teen, Biden’s racist/sexist remarks, and the rest of the 3 ring circus, and you focus on the differences between McCAIN AND OBAMA and their policies as leader of the FREE WORLD, then your site/blog/paper/newscast has integrity and is actually worth reading/watching/listening to.
But it’s stupid to say that ANYTHING is off limits. The writers should just have integrity and common sense to not report on certain things, unless they want to dumb down their own image. Seriously I’m not changing my vote because of the pregnancy, I’m changing the channel/web address on your lame news.
The writers should just have integrity and common sense to not report on certain things
In today’s media? That’s asking a lot.
I agree that it is private and none of the government’s business.
In fact, American Government needs to be down-sized, just like most super-sized Americans. It is time to start withholding a portion of Federal taxes in proportion to the amount of illegal activity carried out by current government representatives. I think a quick measurement will probably determine that this proportion is beyond 50% that should no longer be funded.
After attrition shrinks the size of government to a smaller size (20% of its current size? 10%?) we can once again revisit current priorities versus what can actually get done by the representative body at its new size and configuration.
No more assistants to the assistants to the assistants to the assistants to the assistants to the representatives. If the representatives can not get it done by themselves and a VERY immediate staff (one or two?) then it will not get done, further enforcing a reassessment of values and priorities.
And of course we have to get rid of all special interest groups, no exceptions.
We have the technology to create a truly representative government (open source groups as a model). Let’s cut out all of the middle people and get back to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
mr
With a name like raintrees…I probably disagree with you on every topic.
Every topic except this one, I’m with you here.
In general, yes the government should stay the Eff out of peoples lives. This poll doesn’t cover other important issues though. The government also should stay the Eff out of trying to regulate what we drive, how big our house(s) are, how far we commute. These types of things are also personal choices and those who would pry into them need to die and get out of the way of the rest of us who would like to practice freedom.
Given the Republicans are (or used to be) about freedom from government intrusion, should the government not police drug use (other than when it does affect others such as DUI), try to legislate abortion, who marries whom, end of life decisions by lucid, rational individuals and other private, personal and family matters?
I’m not that young, but this was not in my lifetime. Is anyone old enough to actually remember the time when repugnicans did not intrude into one’s private life? Which was the last such administration?
Certainly, we need a more socially liberal society. We’re currently more likely to get it from the democraps than the repugnicans. However, neither party represents that which they historically did.
#8 Paddy-O,
I have to agree that you were not the first to bring in the labels. They are indeed part of the topic. However, your definition is way out there.
The repugnicans are the party of fascist control over one’s life these days. You may not have an abortion. You may not honor your spouse’s wish to take her off life support. You may not marry the person of your choice. You may not get health care at any facility you choose. You may not use any drug other than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, despite the fact that the former is stronger than many outlawed drugs. All of these and many more are repugnican policies, not democrap policies.
I hate our two party system. I would love to have a zero party system where we could elect individual candidates based on their own actual politics. However, as long as we are stuck with picking the lesser of two evils, these days it is pretty clear that the vast majority of the time, the less controlling politicians are the democraps.
Alas that we have no significant other choices.
#18 bodiddlie,
Extremely well thought out and well reasoned post. Good job. Odd factoid, BTW, just in case anyone is curious, though it is admittedly somewhat irrelevant.
Even before abortion was legalized, the statistics showed that illegal abortions were safer for the mother than childbirth.
So, please remember that if you are thinking about outlawing abortions, even if you think you can prevent them, you are sentencing some women and girls to die so that those fetuses may be born.
I ended up learning this as a result of a discussion on my own blog related to abortion. Here’s the relevant post, scroll up and down through the topic for context of the discussion.
Why Pro-Choice is Pro-Life
#56 “We’re currently more likely to get it from the democraps than the repugnicans. ”
The same demo craps tht are outlawing smoking in your car in CA? ROFL.
#12, I agree wholeheartedly.
I would like to add: I consider it a life that needs protecting up until it is able to fend for itself. What age is that? It should be a case by case basis. Some people don’t mature until they are in their early 20′s (Hell, I didn’t develop a personality until I was 20 — some would say I haven’t yet
). Some much younger. Until we have some way of determining, scientifically, when a mind is mature, we should keep a set age. I prefer 17 but 18 is just as good, I suspect.
You may not get health care at any facility you choose.What? I can get health care at any facility I can afford. Why should I have the right to demand more than that. If I can’t afford any facility, one is already appointed to me by the state (the local E.R. has to treat you).
You may not use any drug other than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine,
And the Democraps are trying to ban those.
The same demo craps tht are outlawing smoking in your car in CA? ROFL.
Or the same ones that are trying to ban foods that might make you fat?
Or the same ones that tried to dictate to the music industry? Remember Dee Schneider telling Al Gore his wife was looking for bondage?
Or the same ones that have (until recently) banned guns from D.C.?
This is not an issue where the Democraps outshine the Publicans.
#41, Dusan,
Scientifically we have many prematurely born infants who survive after 5.5 months in womb.
Would you care to cite ONE case where the baby survived at 5.5 months? You said many, I would like just one.
#45, Bob,
… what you are claiming is that since her daughter is an idiot, that its obviously her fault. That makes no sense.
Yes, that logic is true. The failure of her mother’s teachings have caused her daughter to make her mistake. Maybe if the daughter and boyfriend had of been taught proper sex education she would not have gotten pregnant twice.
My brother after me however, got 2 girls pregnant, went to jail for drugs, and never graduated, and managed this before he even turned 18.
Thank you for the example.
… it means my brother was an idiot, who did stupid things.
True. Maybe if your mother had of taken the time to teach him that abstinence is very fragile around teenage hormones he might not have indulged without using some protection.
#47, Cow-Paddy,
#46 “Unfortunately, her mother has chosen to use her to forward her political career. ”
Really? When did that happen?
When she got on stage with them. When she published a photo of her family on the Alaska Governor’s web site. When she claimed to be the mother of five.
#48, OFTLO,
#28 – A “recreational” meth user????
Huh?
Sure. Haven’t you ever seen all the muscles meth users build up from their recreation?