Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

With regard to the Bristol pregnancy, does it seem as if this is a case of “no good deed goes unpunished?”  The thinking among libs is that Bristol’s pregnancy is proof positive that the Palin family is white trash and that the emphasis on abstinence is a failure and that Palin is a bad mother.

However, when you think about it, we have no idea whether the daughters of liberal politicians are getting pregnant and this is because they don’t feel that they are morally prevented from destroying evidence of the pregnancy. That is, they’ll abort before anyone learns about the pregnancy.  Obama, for example, has said that he wants to make sure his daughters won’t be “punished” for getting pregnant.

For all we know, Chelsea Clinton (who seems like a lovely, smart, and together young lady) could have had an abortion every other year since she hit puberty.*  I sincerely doubt that’s the case, but the fact that we don’t know she’s been pregnant doesn’t mean she hasn’t been pregnant.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So here we have a family that has a teenager who came home pregnant and, instead of destroying the evidence, so as to keep face in the community and advance Mom’s career, the family says, “Okay, let’s embrace and deal with the issue.”  To appreciate what the Palins did is not to condone teen pregnancy.  It is to recognize that they bravely took a moral — and very public — step, while those around them have created a moral environment in which they can keep mum about whatever pregnancy skeletons might lurk in their closets.

________________________________

* I am not starting an ugly rumor about Chelsea and pregnancy and abortions here.  I’m making a hypothetical point, and that is all.