This is more the response I was expecting, even from women who disagree.
Journalists, including Canadians, who could barely contain their glee at the sight of the family-values queen turning out to have a pregnant unmarried daughter – as though the two are mutually exclusive – are infinitely more delicate about respecting the privacy of closeted gay politicians, for instance.
Being pro-life is not a seal on a perfect life–and that doesn’t make anyone a hypocrit. We all make plans for our lives. Or try to. And then other stuff happens. Planned Parenthood? That’s a myth.
Rebecca adds: Is the rule now that only politicians whose children are virgins until marriage are fit to hold office? If anybody believes Bristol Palin is unusual in being sexually active at 17, they’re kidding themselves. And contrary to the nitwits bleating about the futility of abstinence-based sex ed – we have no idea if she used birth control. There is no perfect method of birth control.
I’m also very, very tired of people pointing to Mrs. Palin’s statement that she was “proud of Bristol for choosing to keep her baby” as proof that Palin wants abortion to be a choice at least for her own daughter. It’s clear to me that she was referring to the decision between adoption and parenting. (Although choosing to carry a baby to term and then adopt is no less praiseworthy.)
Finally, the great crisis of illegitimacy is about just that – illegitimacy. Young women aged 17, 18 and 19 have been having babies for centuries. The difference is that they were married when they gave birth, which the Palins have indicated is the plan for Bristol and the father of her baby. I personally would not choose for my children to be married and parents quite that young (growing up and getting an education is hard enough work without such steep responsibilities) but the reality is it happens, and it’s not the end of the world, especially if the couple are committed to making it work and have the support of their families and community.