Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Vox Box

Pentecostal Palin

Advertisement

In a country.... where the separation of church and state has ensured equality and religious freedom for over a century.... one woman will single handedly turn back the clock....Sarah Palin....the Pentecostal V.P. Armed with nothing but a bible and fashionable belt, she pledges to take reproductive choices out of the hands of women who aren't capable (or wealthy) enough to make them and put those choices in the hands of the government leaders who care so deeply for the unborn babies. But do they care deeply enough to adopt them, educate them and even....gasp...feed them? Faith based programs have done some of this but not enough. If R v W is ever overturned, will the religious leaders swoop in and save the actual lives of the babies as they grow into children, teens and hopefully, adults? This nation has not only a short attention span but bad long term memory. Who remembers the pre-Roe v Wade years of back alley abortions and rich girls spending long summers in liberal European countries? The rich make choices the rest of the low income poor women make babies. Many with addictions at birth. I know. I work with these kids every day. Keeping abortion safe and legal isn't going to prevent teen pregnancy. Abstinence education doesn't prevent teen pregnancy. Nothing can stop teens from getting pregnant if they aren't careful. Acceptance of teen pregnancy and good social programs that help teens successfully raise their unwanted children, or find good families for their babies are what it will take. But the Republican's can't possibly pay for all of that. It's too expensive to offer them the support they can't get anywhere else. As our demographic becomes geriatric, you can bet the majority of tax paying citizens will frown on social programs, faith based or otherwise, to help these pregnant young women. So...what's the solution? Abortion. Safe and legal.

Comments

RJ 6 years, 2 months ago

It doesn't seem very safe for the babies. In my opinion, removing the consequences of teen-sex (i.e. pregnancy, and STD's) makes the action more likely to happen.The social stigma that used to come from having abortions (or babies for that matter) by un-wed or teenage mothers used to be a pretty strong deterrent to un-safe sex. Not 100%, I know, but I bet there wouldn't have been tens of millions of babies mudered for the convience of irresponsible women. My wife got mad at me for saying "irresponsible women" but I contend that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant than she is irresponsible for having sex and even more irresponsible for not using birth control. If a man doesn't want to have a baby, he is irresponsible for having sex and even more irresponsible for not using birth control. The difference is, women have been given a remedy for their indescretions while men have none. Both partners know the consequences and should be prepared to accept them.I wouldn't be against Planned Parenthood funding if they performed the social programs instead of abortions.

1retrodifference 5 years, 9 months ago

ahh, the aesthetics of more educated minds seeking increase, ahh... just let me reflect a still moment with these fine choice words...ahh, now that is called better...with a govt program for the homeless in our nation, uncle sam(uncle Obama) needs to set an efficient adoption agency to cover for accidental parents...all this is retro spect, all this isnot under the body who we people are going to prove to be.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.