I am Pro Quality of Life
Posted by eemilla on September 7, 2008
Kudos to The Daily Show for their coverage of the Palin hypocrisy. Not only did John Stewart juxtapose some of the nasty, sexist commentary while Senator Clinton was running against the cries of sexism by the “liberal media” in defense of Governor Palin from the very same people who attacked Senator Clinton, but Samantha Bee tried in vain to get Republican delegates to say the word choice in light of Governor Palin’s unwed pregnant teenage daughter.
Under most circumstances I would defend Governor Palin’s argument that her daughter’s pregnancy is a private family matter; however, in this instance her public policy is to take the choice to have a child away from the family. Additionally, she doesn’t want to allow comprehensive sexual education, which could have prevented this pregnancy. If it is right for her family then how can she deny my choice for my family?
It is finally time that the Democratic party is opening the up the choice plank to put the emphasis on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than it just being about abortion. I understand that the option to abort is important, but preventing the pregnancy is the best option. I cannot understand how the pro-choice lobby have allowed themselves to be painted as pro-abortion or anti-life. I personally cannot say that I would have an abortion as this time in my life, but I cannot say that this has always been the case. I have never encountered anyone who thought of abortion as birth control; I think of it as a chance to increase the quality of each life in this world. I say this because I am the product of a marriage that happened because I was conceived (I must note that my mother would never have considered an abortion because [I believe] she just wanted a family of her own).
As not all families provide the good sound judgement that is required to be a responsible active sexual person, I think that government does have an obligation to do so. I do not like the thought of government stepping in and picking up the role of the parent, but at the same time for those ignorant, inexperienced people procreating the government will step in as the surrogate parent in the form of welfare (Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing and childcare as well as financial aid for the parents and please don’t forget the child tax credit). Without stretching very far, I can think of five examples of these ignorant procreators getting a free ride (three of which are within my own family). As this is the case why should taxpayers be denied the right to try to prevent these births in the first place?
Another major argument against comprehensive sexual education is the increase in sexual activity among those receiving the education, but honestly, I had plenty of sex before I was eighteen with my abstinence only education. I was fortunate enough not to contract any sexually transmitted diseases while playing around with oral sex, but I would say it is a shame that I first learned about using protection when practicing oral sex from a Jamie Foxx movie.
With sex being such a private matter, it is difficult for me to envision it being a part of the public education curriculum, and I cannot dispute that it is an arduous decision to calculate when in the process should sex-ed be introduced. However, it is reckless to not teach our burgeoning adults safer sex methods, and while at all points it would not have be compulsory at some stage the comprehensive sexual education would have to be requisite.
Hopefully, the change in the Democratic plank regarding pregnancy reflects a new direction for the entire country. Keep your laws off of my body, and stay out of my bedroom!