The birds and the bees

So, I've been rather intrigued to hear all the rhetoric coming from the left about Sarah Palin. They've put themselves in somewhat of a bind, as the inherent fallacy and inconsistency of their worldview will be apparent the minute they open their mouths.

First off, we hear that she was irresponsible for having delivered a Down Syndrome baby when sweet little Trig was diagnosed in utero. In a world where 90+ percent of Down Syndrome infants are murdered before birth, this seems crazy. The liberals talk about their sacred cow, choice, but then gasp and gawk when a family decides that its commitment to life extends to all children God creates in the womb, not just those with the standard number of chromosomes. So, in reality, the liberals only approve of choice when it means taking the easy way out.

Next, we hear that she should be home taking care of her children and that the rigors of the campaign will cause too much strain upon her family. Isn't this what the liberals wanted. Weren't the mothers of the feminist movement burning their bras just for this very day? For years they have demeaned the role of the woman homemaker and instead of embracing God's plan for the family, have declared that in order to be equal to a man a woman must become like a man. And yet when a woman who disagrees with their ideals comes into her own, they start squealing for her to go back to the kitchen.

And finally, the kicker. Bristol Palin's pregnancy. First the rumor mill swirled that baby Trig was not Sarah's son, but rather her grandson. Then, when the Palin family shared the news that their 17 year old unmarried daughter was indeed with child, they immediately pounced upon this pregnancy as a failure of abstinence only education and Republican family values. Hmmm. Notice any glaring hypocrisy?

The liberals want to teach our children about sex, including information on contraceptive usage, abortion, and homosexuality as a normal and valid choice. They do not want to teach our children about sex with the benefit of any moral framework to hang their decisions on. Yet when a seventeen year old becomes pregnant and chooses not to kill her unborn child for the sake of convenience, they declare this to be an invalid choice. So, they want to teach our children how to have sex without moral guidelines, while reserving the right to tell them that they have done wrong later, when the natural consequences of sex (pregnancy) come to fruition. Can't have it both ways, liberals. Either it's wrong to be having sex and we should be teaching that it is wrong, or we should applaud and embrace teen pregnancy and unwed motherhood as wonderful life decisions.

Bringing us to my final point. I'm seriously doubting that Bristol Palin got pregnant because she had no idea how sex worked or that you should use contraception if you desire to prevent pregnancy. She got pregnant because she chose to engage in an adult behavior, probably without using adult precautions (who knows though, as contraceptive devices do fail, even when used properly). A liberal blog link that was sent to me suggested that because her mother supports abstinence education and creationism, Bristol probably assumed that babies were brought by the stork or that God left them under your pillow. Good gracious. Even my eight year old knows basically how babies are made (and that God's best plan is that we wait until marriage). If our children are going to act like adults and have intercourse they should be prepared to assume adult risks such as pregnancy.

I am going to start praying daily for the Palin family. Even though the choices Sarah Palin has made are not the ones that I would make (my heart is here, with my kids, and I look forward to the day I can devote all my time and energy here), I still believe she is an excellent candidate for VP.