So even though I don’t think he meant to judge, and even though I don’t think he meant to make babies sound like nothing more than dead weight…. his words could still have that EFFECT on some women. Which is really yucky.

I hate the whole “pregnancy, STDs, abortion blah blah blah” debates in politics, because invariably not one single candidate has any CLUE about single motherhood, unwed pregnancy stigma, or adoption. The pro-lifers scream for outlawing abortion and trot out adoption as near cure-all; the pro-choicers, in an attempt to appease potential conservative cross-over voters and independents, disagree about outlawing abortion but go on to agree with the conservatives that adoption is a lovely answer to all of it. How bipartisan! How lovely! Look we CAN be unified on this issue! (Barf.)

It all makes me want to scream.

But…

As with anything we say, if it can be misunderstood like this, doesn’t that negate its effectiveness? Shouldn’t he have been more clear? I’m sure I’m not the only one on the planet who felt ostracized by such a comment. Just saying. It’s another example of how little thought is put into how unplanned pregnancy is addressed by politicians and the media. Then again, if you haven’t experienced it, you either have no CLUE how it feels to be judged or portrayed in such a manner and may not be careful with your words OR you just don’t care.

But thanks for shedding some light on it, commenters. I feel a little better now that we’ve discussed it but know that there are others out there who will either feel like I do OR think, “Yeah! Those skeezy single moms!”

I read him as saying, “I’ll teach them values and morals, but even people with values and morals make mistakes, and if they do…”

It can be read both ways, but just having watched a million of his speeches and read about him and so on, I do not in any way think he’s saying that moral people are perfect.

Or am I just a skeezy girl who had no semblance of right or wrong?

One of the things that you have to remember is that he was answering a “pro-lifer” who wanted him to “stop these abortions.” So definitely my first thought is that he’s countering the anti-abortion front. He’s laying out his pro-choice line. Which includes comprehensive education. Now, I do think his word choice was poor (and I’m sure if someone calls him on it he will say that as well).

He goes on to say that he doesn’t want them “punished with an STD at 16″ either. Which kind of reinforces the whole punishment for sex loop, which isn’t good. (Word choice, word choice is so important.)

I think what he was trying to say is that he didn’t want his daughters to face burdens that they might not be able to carry (such as raising a child at that point, in some views) or an STD, because they had sex.

As for the morals and values, I don’t think that it’s him saying that his morals and values are better at all. Also I think he was speaking to a semi-conservative crowd, so he was tailoring his answer to them. It doesn’t make it all hunky-dory, but I tend to try and look at the situation as well as the statement.

It does make me a little queasy to hear the words “make adoption a viable option” but yet again I think some of it is situational. I hope. Because really, I like him in several ways, and the other front runner candidates make me feel nauseous on a regular basis.

Of course that’s my spin on it, and it’s certainly not the end all be all of truth in this. By the way, if I come across offensive, it’s not my intention. I’m not sure I was entirely clear, but I thought I’d chime in with another view.

The whole promiscuity thing is bugging me lately. I just had an incident with the whole “birthmoms are promiscuios” sterotype and have a post about that coming up.