Apparently that's the rumour; the 2-3 year old kid is Palin's, but people have been claiming it's actually her daughter's and they've pretended it's hers. The usual unlikely conspiracy crap.Alleycat wrote:I find it weird that in that picture she is holding what looks to be a 2 or 3 year old in her arms and the big news is she is pregnant at 17.
What about when she was pregnant at 14 or 15? IMO that's better news.
"Palin's teen daughter is pregnant... AGAIN!"
It's an interesting turn of events - and politically newsworthy - because it seems as though the republicans aren't dressing it down at all.
Watch her score points at the press release with the same fundie demographic you'd think would be upset about this by highlighting her "daughter's decision" to not have an abortion (without actually, you know, saying that - after all it was never even considered).
It's doubly interesting because we assume this is one of the families who would heavily push the kind of values present in the Bush administration's "promise you won't have sex before marriage at all in any way" abstinence classes, but even here it's failed - and naturally it's shaky ground no matter who wants to use it as a springboard for their own agenda, since after all, pregnant teens and cute babies are a no-man's-land.
Something just seems off about it - she's 17, daughter of a prominent right-wing Christian, pregnant, getting married - what is this, the fifties?
Talk to any psych - Baka's ex will tell you - and getting married at this stage is the absolute worst decision she could make (short of the whole unprotected sex thing, but it's a little late for that).
So what's the message that "impressionable" teens are supposed to take from this? That abstinence is a must, and contraception is bad, but hey, if you do get knocked up, marriage makes it all better?
So yeh, I think it's newsworthy, but it's the way she's chosen to handle it that's newsworthy, rather than the pregnancy itself.