Oh boy, I heard that speech yesterday by Obama and a chill went up my spine. A baby as punishment for the crime of what? Being stupid? One little old mistake and then...... a lifetime in kid hell, HELL, I tell you.
Ann Althouse blogged about it, of course and here's what she says:
Obama is obviously talking about contraception education, but there is an implicit — albeit deniable — signal about abortion rights. Note that he says "I'm going to teach [my daughters] first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." If they make a mistake, doesn't that mean they failed to use contraception? It suggests that to a lot of people, but I think he took the position that it would be a mistake to have sex at all, and therefore he wants them to know to use contraception — that is, to make a mistake with less consequence.I don't think the "implicit signal" is deniable. He meant what he said--a baby is a punishment for a "mistake". The mistake being having sex without contraception. Having unmarried sex is not a mistake. It's reality. At least that's how I took it. His expectation is that his teenage daughters will be sexually active. I mean, he's a "realist" and that if they screw up with contraception, he doesn't want them burdened with a baby. His view is entirely accurate for the way many parents feel--especially ones who believe in abortion. I mean, that's the point of abortion, right? Abortion is to avoid the "punishment" a child reeks on the life of a young mother. Right?
This is not my view, by the way. I'm one of those simpletons who believes every child is a gift from God, even the child of a rapist. Adoption is always an option. A child conceived deserves a chance. That's my philosophy.
But what about teens and sex? Church kids have sex. They know their parents think it's wrong. They want sex. Or they want the boyfriend or girlfriend. They have scars. They are hurt. But they're doing it anyway. Who doesn't want sex?
So, is the answer for parents to hold the ideal and allow their kids to sneak to Planned Parenthood, like Rachel Lucas says:
Think about it: if they’re going to Planned Parenthood secretly, they obviously have parents who don’t want them to have sex. Which clearly isn’t stopping them from having sex, so what good would it do to force them to have parental permission to get the pill? The only outcome from that would be that instead of having sex with contraception, they’ll have sex without it.
Who wins then? Not the parents; they may feel great about having control over their daughter’s use or lack thereof of protection even while they can never control whether or not she has sex, but they won’t feel so great the day she comes home to tell them she’s pregnant.
What should parents do?