Sunday Is "Sanctity of Human Life Day"
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
January 13, 2012 - 7:47pm (Print)
Apparently, I have forgotten to mark my calendar. But luckily, I have the Baptist Press around to remind me that this weekend is the "Sanctity of Human Life Sunday."
Maybe I should get my 37 week fetus a card or something.
So what is this very special day all about?
On Jan. 15, Baptist churches in Kentucky and throughout the Southern Baptist Convention will observe Sanctity of Human Life Sunday by focusing on life issues, as well as the critical role played by pregnancy centers such as Appalachian Pregnancy Care Center in helping women choose life.
"It was like God sent the pregnancy center just for me," [volunteer Lisa] Welch said. "We were in the ministry, I taught abstinence, and then my own daughter was pregnant. I was in shock. I knew I needed good, strong, biblical advice."
What sort of "good, strong, biblical advice" did the family receive? Well, Welch's 15 year old daughter was told to keep the baby, the girl's boyfriend was counseled on "how to be a dad," and they got married three months after the baby was born.
I wish there would be a "not convincing teens that they should get married when underage" day next.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
Is it just me or is the most ironic part of this "I taught abstinence, and then my own daughter was pregnant." Rational people would have at least entertained the thought that perhaps they were going in the wrong direction.
Equalist,
Are you suggesting that abstinence does not prevent unwanted pregnancy? The unfortunate situation as described in Ms. Marty's posting, and that to which you refer, underscores the importance for educating children in appropriate sexual expressions. It was not the parent's fault their teenage daughter got pregnant because of their efforts to model abstinence. Abstinence does not forbid sex, it simply seeks to protect both potential mother and potential father from heartache, guilt and the incredible challenges faced in teen pregnancy by insisting that sex is best and healthiest when enjoyed and protected within a monogamous, committed marriage. I don't see the irrationality in that.
Oh, certainly the parents had every right to tell their daughter not to have sex until she got married, and to carefully keep her ignorant of the ways in which she could protect herself from STD's and pregnancy so that if she did have sex they could use the resulting pregnancy to 'catch her being bad' and punish her horribly by ruining the rest of her life. After all, their lives are crappy, so they might as well spoil hers as well.
Seems to me, though, that if the point was really "saving the potential mother and potential father from heartache, guilt and the incredible challenges faced in teen pregnancy" it would require one MORE step by the parents. They should never have allowed her to date.
"Innocence based in ignorance doesn't have the information it needs to protect itself."
While ideologues certainly can hide the truth from their children, they should then be required to chaperone them 24/7, never allow them to be alone with a boy, and make sure they're not exposed to temptations they are unaware of and unable to withstand, because once you've made sure your kids understand taking cookies is wrong, leaving the plate right down where they can reach it is called 'entrapment', and nobody but a sadistic monster would deliberately expose someone they supposedly love to an irresistable temptation just to have the 'fun' of enjoying their suffering.
Although there is a word for it, isn't there?
"scha·den·freu·de - satisfaction felt at someone else's misfortune."Crowepps,
Of course I do not know this family’s life or whether it is “crappy” or not. I confess further to not knowing if the child was enlightened to the truth that you and I apparently agree on, namely the dangers inherent with a promiscuous lifestyle. Besides that, though I do not know this family, it is doubtful they were pleased to entrap the daughter or the father of their grandchild in some sort of what could only be called sadistic satisfaction in the fact.
I regret I do not follow your reasoning. I am a father of a three year old daughter and a six-week old son and will teach them both the value of waiting for marriage. I do so fully planning on teaching them the many, many dangers of not valuing their bodies, their sexuality or their future spouse’s. Furthermore, raising them as critical thinkers, I fully expect and will encourage them to question mine and their mother’s position on this issue to have the open dialogue necessary. My wife and I will teach abstinence, not because sex is something to view as dirty and above the restraint of self-control – it is non-sense to suggest otherwise — but that it is a gloriously wonderful and beautiful part of a healthy marriage.
Is it really better to teach my son how to wear a condom, or to teach him to value, respect and protect all women, to not objectify them to fulfill a base, animalistic desire he cannot control, overpowering as many women as will succumb to his condom wearing expertise? Is it not better to teach my daughter to value herself above the sophomoric belief that she simply cannot overcome the "irresistible temptation" of Prince Charming’s seduction? Would you consider that hiding the truth from them?
It may not be very progressive, but doesn’t everyone deserve a fulfilling sexual relationship without fear of being someone else’s toy, a mere object of lust removed from love? Such ideals are far from a schadenfreude view of human sexuality, quite the opposite wouldn’t you agree?
Yeah, I would consider that hiding the truth from them. The truth is 'your mother and I believe that sex is so special it should only be with one person, your spouse' (religious indoctrination optional) AND 'here are the biological facts about how sex works and how STD's and pregnancy can be prevented which I am telling you so you will know the true facts and be protected from all the nonsense your friends are going to tell you.'
If you really truly plan to teach your children to be critical thinkers, keep in mind that hiding the facts so that they don't have anything to think about makes that pretty difficult. You might even want to inform your son there are more than two options, and that he isn't limited to only virgin or animalistic rapist who considers women sex toys.
I find it disturbing that while you plan to teach your son that he cannot control his desire, while teaching your daughter that her sexuality is something she has absolute control over. To me that sets the son up for having an excuse to rape ("It's not like I could control myself!") and sets the daughter up to be a victim of rape or to blame herself for assault if god forbid it should happen to her.
I'm suggesting that the teaching of abstinence only without including other information does not prevent unwanted pregnancy. The fact is, when have you ever seen teenagers not do something simply because they were told to? In addition, a factor not addressed at all through abstinence until marriage education is that there is a portion of the population who is not allowed to marry the person they wish to spend the rest of their lives with. To them, hearing that sex is only acceptable in marriage is either a message lost in the knowledge that they will never have that right so the rule doesn't apply to them (and then they're left with no protection from STDs) or can be quite damaging and depressing in that the only clear option for them is lifelong celebacy.
