Wednesday, September 17, 2008

BRISTOL AND SARAH PALIN

Personally I will not vote for this woman. I won't get into it. It is my private personal choice. However, some issues concerning her daughter really really bother me. I don't care how Trig came into this world. If this child is either Sarah's or Bristol's, the child is staying in the family. I am happy with that. I hope that Bristol's marriage to Levi is a good one. I hope that it is what they both want. Again, I am very cool with her decision on it. I do not want to argue if she may have been forced or not to marry. That is something that is on her and her family. Again its not up to me.

What is really bothering me is the questions that some prospective adoptive parent and various religious bloggers are saying about her. I really wonder what Sarah and Bristol Palin is thinking about all of this. Do they see how these folks want her to relinquish her child? One blog was brought to my attention.

"There have been so many comments and discussion about this young girl's pregnancy, Why should a 17-year-old girl be forced to marry a high school boy who says on his Facebook page that he never wants to have kids? What about their futures?

Does nobody know how many people are waiting to create a family who are ready and more than willing to take on the responsibilities of parenthood?

I just don't get why making an adoption plan doesn't even come up!

Isn't that most likely the best decision for Bristol, for Levi and for the baby?"

This is from a prospective adoptive parent. Sounds a bit entitled to me. Are you wanting to adopt this child? It sure sounds like it.

I wrote about a Mormon blogger that really just flipped me out. Here is another one calling for Bristol to place her child for adoption. The blogger even quotes the Mormon view on an unplanned pregnancy.

"When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing a family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption. Placing the infant for adoption helps unwed parents do what is best for the child. Adoption is an unselfish, loving decision that blesses the birth parents, the child, and the adoptive family.
The missing question that should be asked: is raising the child with a teen husband the best option for the child; for the couple?"

Yet even another blogger stated:

"I’ll go against the conservative blogosphere grain and state my confusion over and disappointment in John McCain’s choice of running mate. I think Sarah Palin, a relatively unknown female governor from Alaska, is a bad choice.

I came to this conclusion before I found out Palin has a five-month-old infant (I believe mothers [and fathers, OK?] should raise their children) and a knocked up teenage age daughter (who ought to give up the baby for adoption to an older, married, two-parent family) or that she’s under investigation for ethics violations."

What is it about adoption? If adoption is so great, why aren't you placing your children for adoption? Even if she doesn't get married, at least Sarah and Bristol are still keeping that child in the family. Bristol has the support of her family. She has access to the many resources of her family.

Explain to me again why parenting one's own child is not a viable option for a woman. Oh and by the way. NO WOMAN OWES HER CHILD TO ANOTHER WOMAN.




4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is connected to Scientology. Here's how:

She has been, and still continues to be, deeply involved with the ultra-right-wing "Dominionist" church movement. READ THIS:

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-cnp.html

The main nexus for the Dominionists is the "Committee on National Policy", which strangely includes non-Christian organizations such as, yes, The Church of Scientology.

The leading "Dominionist" church is MorningStar ministries, which despite being a Christian church, leans heavily on "supernatural" themes and blatantly uses the Scientology Cross in their logo:

http://www.morningstarministries.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_cross

KITE KAMP GIRL said...

Uhm although I appreciate the information on her. This blog post was not about her religion. This was a blog post against those who are calling her and her daughter out for not wanting to place her child for adoption. This is one issue that I DO COMMEND her on.

Lori A said...

What I'm hearing from some of the commenters is that any child born to a single mother should be automatically given up for adoption by a two parent family.

So when the two parent family becomes a one parent family through divorce, death, or just plain missing, (people go missing all the time)then those children should automatically be put up for adoption again because being a single parent is a huge no no.

My guess is if that were to happen to even a handful of adoptive parents who became single parents this whole conversation would be over. But for some reason it's okay to be a single parent as long as you didn't start out that way.

maybe said...

I like Lori's logic on this, and it could also apply to finances.
Lose your job or have financial problems...hey, the kids should be adopted by people who are better off.