God's grace on display for the seemingly "unforgivable"

PrintSmith wrote: What I believe you to be overlooking here SC is that it is precisely that age demographic who is putting into practice what they have been taught for the first time outside of the controlled environment of their earlier years. This is the age demographic where children leave the nest, where the misinformation they receive earlier in life is liable to result in the greatest consequences in this arena. A 16 year old still living with her parents realistically has fewer options than a 20 year old residing outside of the home while attending college.

Very true, and the focus on sex ed should be to improve it to include realistic outcomes of having sex. While I understand that this isn't representative of all schools, the sex ed class I had spoke nothing of sexually transmitted diseases, population percentages of those with them and risks associated with unprotected sex, chances of unintended pregnancy that goes with each type of birth control (or birth control at all), pregnancy, or abortions and the seriousness of that decision. We learned anatomy and that was it. That doesn't seem like a good way to help teenagers make informed responsible decisions.

When I chose to start having sex at age 18, I knew next to nothing about risks (other than old wives tales) and ways to protect myself, much less having any means to obtain them. Just like most other teenagers, I took my risks and briefly thought that if anything went wrong, I'd "take care of it" so it wouldn't ruin my future; luckily, I never had to make that choice (and when I went off to college that fall, a friend suggested I go to PP for birth control. It would've been nice to have been better informed of all my options rather than getting lucky, or having friends look out for me more so than my family). That's the type of thinking that needs to be addressed. Becoming pregnant shouldn't "ruin" anyone's life, and if we as a society could remove that stigma of an unwed girl becoming pregnant, and instead focus on helping her bring that life into the world to be sent to a family that will love, cherish, and raise them instead, we do all of us a great service.

If we give more support to stay in school, or keep the job, then by default we are not teaching them to think ahead and reach a reasoned decision regarding their conduct and the potential consequences of that decision, we are instead telling them that they don't need to think it through and come to a reasoned decision before acting. We are being reactive rather than proactive at that point and actually providing an incentive to indulge their feelings and desires without first making a reasoned and informed decision to do so. Isn't that the type of thinking that led many to purchase a home they could not afford and for businesses to engage in behavior for profit regardless of risk? When CS and I were shopping for a home, we were told that we could afford to purchase a home that was $100K in price higher than the range we were shopping in. We both would have loved to have a house that was that much grander than the one we purchased, wouldn't everyone? What kept us from indulging that desire was the reasoned decision we came to before we started shopping for a home about how much home we could afford if our situation changed for the worse instead of staying the same or continuing to get better. We can't, as a society, continue saying to people that we will be bailing them out of their poor decisions by reducing or eliminating the negative consequences that stem from acting before reasoning and then expect that they will reason before acting.

Again, we need realistic, cold hard facts put into our education programs so that we do teach them to think ahead and realistically consider the consequences of their actions, instead of taking chances and resorting to unacceptable measures.

With regards to Planned Parenthood, I think their promotion of responsible birth control is exemplary, it is their promotion of irresponsible post-conception birth control that I take issue with. If they wish to continue to receive funding for the former via tax dollars, I think it reasonable to require them to abandon the latter in the same clinic. I see no good resulting from reducing the costs associated with providing abortion services that accompanies the ability to share costs of running and staffing a clinic that provides both desirable and undesirable services; of having the same doctor examine and counsel someone in the area of responsible birth control at his 11 o'clock appointment and then perform an elective surgery to effect post-conception birth control at his 11:20 appointment. If their objective is to provide both, then I am sure that there are enough private individuals who agree with that mission that are willing to provide the funds necessary to replace that which is currently provided by the federal government and who feel it necessary to allow Planned Parenthood to continue to operate in the same manner. If not, then Planned Parenthood has a choice to make.

The federal government does have the authority to place restrictions on the money it contributes that comes from the taxes we pay. They withhold funds for highways in the absence of a 0.08 BAC, the lack of a primary seat belt law and speed limits above a certain figure. They withhold education funds under certain conditions, Medicaid funds when certain conditions are not met and many others. The removal of the abortion service from the same clinic that provides responsible contraceptive counseling and services is not an unreasonable request in exchange for taxpayers subsidizing those services.

[/quote]Again, true. The government does have a say in how the taxpayers dollars are spent and if you listen to what the president of PP says, absolutely no taxpayer dollars goes towards funding abortions. We'll have to agree to disagree that PP can't perform these 2 services concurrently. Most of their clinics don't perform abortions already and to establish a separate organization unnecessarily adds complexity, IMO.

Nmysys wrote: It used to be that the safest place in the world for a child, was in the mother's womb. Now, it seems to be the most dangerous place!

Yeah, and the childbirth mortality rate used to be 7 in 100, and infant mortality before age 1 even higher - even including abortion, more babies are surviving today than ever did in the past.