Back in Texas
Thanks Cecily for the link to this one. Texas is at it again. The state motto should be barefoot and pregnant and when will our nation start enforcing Roe V. Wade with this group. Remember that Roe v. Wade was allowed in front of the supreme court because Texas decided to ignore the state 3 judge ruling on abortion. So now, they are ignoring Roe v. Wade and putting restrictions on abortion.
Let's think about this. On the surface, it seems that a child should not be able to get an abortion without their parents knowing about it. We define a child as a male or female under the age of 18 (except in cases of alcohol use where they have to be 21). Would you or I be happy if we found out that our precious child had gone and had a pretty serious medical procedure without our knowing it?
The problem is, the parents of these children have already neglected their parenting responsibility. Maybe they should not have a say. Maybe the state should be looking into taking custody of these kids. A bit harsh I know, but the whole reason why we don't require notification is because of the consequences to the girl. How many of these girls would end up being beaten, verbally abused, kicked onto the streets or maybe even worse if daddy and mommy found out.
And more, are the parents who can't keep their teen from having sex, appropriate family for a newborn? This is one of the great arguments agains the best thing for a child is a father and a mother. Even with a father and a mother, kids can still get messed up and when the pregnancy is the result of incest, boy we have a wonderful reason to bring that baby into the world and even have it grow up with Grandpa/Daddy what every you want to call him.
Let's talk about the state of the world since abortion became protected. Instead of burying our heads in the sand and believing that if abortion were illegal, no one would have premarital sex, we now try to stop abortion by making it unnecessary. We now know that incest occurs and the rate at which it happens. We now know that a teen who gets herself pregnant is not just willing to give that child up blindly to some middle class couple who she knows nothing about. We now know that with support and education, that teen can become a pretty good mother (even if the father isn't around). We now know why the fathers are so often not present. We now know that to ignore the reality of teens having sex means more pregnancies whereas to educate teens on the implications of sex and the protection that they need to use saves us money. We may not like the choice, but the choice for protected sex is far superior to the choice of unprotected sex both in terms of pregnancy and socially transmitted disease. We now know that men are as responsible for pregnancy as women. Imagine that! We now know that choice includes not only abortion, but also adoption and also keeping a baby.
But aw shucks, it takes some work. We need to help these girls raise their family. We need to spend money teaching them how to take care of themselves before they can take care of a kid. Wouldn't it just be easier if we made a law that no one could have sex unless they were married -- To someone of the opposite sex of course?
Let's think about this. On the surface, it seems that a child should not be able to get an abortion without their parents knowing about it. We define a child as a male or female under the age of 18 (except in cases of alcohol use where they have to be 21). Would you or I be happy if we found out that our precious child had gone and had a pretty serious medical procedure without our knowing it?
The problem is, the parents of these children have already neglected their parenting responsibility. Maybe they should not have a say. Maybe the state should be looking into taking custody of these kids. A bit harsh I know, but the whole reason why we don't require notification is because of the consequences to the girl. How many of these girls would end up being beaten, verbally abused, kicked onto the streets or maybe even worse if daddy and mommy found out.
And more, are the parents who can't keep their teen from having sex, appropriate family for a newborn? This is one of the great arguments agains the best thing for a child is a father and a mother. Even with a father and a mother, kids can still get messed up and when the pregnancy is the result of incest, boy we have a wonderful reason to bring that baby into the world and even have it grow up with Grandpa/Daddy what every you want to call him.
Let's talk about the state of the world since abortion became protected. Instead of burying our heads in the sand and believing that if abortion were illegal, no one would have premarital sex, we now try to stop abortion by making it unnecessary. We now know that incest occurs and the rate at which it happens. We now know that a teen who gets herself pregnant is not just willing to give that child up blindly to some middle class couple who she knows nothing about. We now know that with support and education, that teen can become a pretty good mother (even if the father isn't around). We now know why the fathers are so often not present. We now know that to ignore the reality of teens having sex means more pregnancies whereas to educate teens on the implications of sex and the protection that they need to use saves us money. We may not like the choice, but the choice for protected sex is far superior to the choice of unprotected sex both in terms of pregnancy and socially transmitted disease. We now know that men are as responsible for pregnancy as women. Imagine that! We now know that choice includes not only abortion, but also adoption and also keeping a baby.
But aw shucks, it takes some work. We need to help these girls raise their family. We need to spend money teaching them how to take care of themselves before they can take care of a kid. Wouldn't it just be easier if we made a law that no one could have sex unless they were married -- To someone of the opposite sex of course?
1 Comments:
At 12:48 PM, Anonymous said…
You have so eloquently stated such a sensitive issue! But then your last statement makes me think of Dominionists! I'm thinking you were using your well-equipped sardonic humor, of course.
I'm lovin' your blogs!
Post a Comment
<< Home