Monday, March 31, 2008
|
|
"Punished" With a Baby?
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
11:54 AM
|
Over at Ben Smith's Politico blog, there is a attention-getting quote from Barack Obama, discussing sex education in schools:
"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Is this simply inartful phrasing -- or is it the kind of remark that inadvertently reveals the mindset of many of those who are, like Barack, at the extreme of the pro-choice movement, where a baby is less a life that's worthy of respect and protection than it is simply an undeserved "punishment" for those who've engaged in ill-advised sexual activity?
One final comment: Those who are in favor of the Planned Parenthood/SIECUS approach to sex ed -- you know, where children spend class time putting condoms on bananas -- often try to set up the same false dichotomy employed by Barack above.
The real choice isn't about whether we teach young people to exercise sexual restraint or else we "give them information." The choice is whether we have the moral confidence -- and the social consensus -- that's required to teach young people that casual sex at a tender age is wrong, or whether we just treat it as another decision, like whether to have pizza or hamburgers for lunch.
There is a world of difference in knowing how one's body works, where babies come from, and that contraception is available for use when one is older and it is appropriate to be having sexual relations, on the one hand -- and, on the other, being "given information" that implicitly encourages and facilitates teen sex by conveying a message that sexual activity on the part of teens isn't just normal, it's expected.
|
|
You know there is a certain sect of religious folks that object to things like HPV vaccine and condoms because it removes what may be considered adverse consequences for sinful behavior. In their mindset these consequences are punishments for immorality that, if removed, would lead to people having sex all willy-nilly.
It’s a poor choice of words.
|
|
When taken in context with Obama's history of supporting the murder of babies that survive abortions, I don't think that this can be described as a slip of his articulate tongue.
An unwanted pregnancy can be a consequence of sex, but what happens after that consequence is what determines if it is a punishment or a blessing. Placing a baby for adoption with a couple who can't otherwise have children is a great blessing to the baby (it gets a mom and dad who are able and willing to care for it) and the couple. Obviously single motherhood is hard, but I doubt that most single mothers consider their children punishments. |
|
|
You know, my daughter is one of those young girls who made a mistake and made a choice and had her baby. She did'nt think her beautiful little girl was punishment. She took her situation as a challenge and worked full time and now is in school full time working part time and doing all she can to better her life. You can do that without a child sure! You can do it all with one too! Obamas way of the thinking is not the answer to the plight of teen pregnancy. Teaching these young people how to achieve and set goals and have hope for their future by educating them and instilling pride in who they are, is. Hopefully they will make the right choices that do not result in teen pregnacy,but if they do make a mistake it doesn't define who they are and that there is still hope. |
|
|
|