“Punished with a baby”?

Several weeks ago, Barack Obama gave a speech that contained a controversial phrase:

I’ve been in a discussion over here on my friend’s blog, where a recent post about an anti-Clinton group evolved into a discussion on Barack Obama’s controversial statements. Ignoring that he analogizes a baby with a sexually transmitted disease, when he makes statements like “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby,” his supporters give him a pass because he simply used the wrong words.

So let’s assume that he should have used better words, replacing “punished with” with “suffer the consequences of.” It would read like this: “If my daughters make the mistake [of having unprotected sex], I don’t want them to suffer the consequences of a baby or an STD.” How is this any better? In reality all he is saying is that we should not be responsible for our mistakes if we don’t like the consequences. One could argue that this makes the statement even worse!

The discussion evolved far enough for somebody to say that pro-lifers would be controlling the fate of a pregnant woman who wishes to have an abortion. This is simply twisted reasoning.

Here’s how I get there:

When I read the apostle Paul, I read illustrations about sowing and reaping (Galatians 6). It is a farming analogy, used to illustrate a pattern of life. When a person chooses to sow a vegetable seed into the ground, he does not expect to reap fruit from that same soil. The same applies to our actions. To state it in contemporary language, “What goes around comes around.” And while it does not always appear that life occurs in cause-effect patterns (because “bad things happen to good people”), things that are within our control (such as what we eat, whether we exercise, whether we smoke, etc.) have clearly defined risks associated with them. Eat too much, you might gain weight. Exercise enough, you’ll be relatively fit. Smoke, and you might get lung cancer.

There are, of course, some things that are out of our control. I can’t control the drunk driver who smashes into my car. I can’t keep an economy from crashing. I can’t keep Al Gore from lying to us in a “movie.” But it is a simple fact of life that I am in control of my actions, and that I am responsible for their consequences.

Since I am the one who is responsible for my actions, I must be prepared for consequences that I may dislike, or for which I did not plan. It is how we respond to these situations that makes the difference in our hearts. We can choose to allow them to make us better, or we can allow ourselves to become bitter.

Back to controlling fate. The bottom line is that our actions have consequences, whether we like those consequences or not. It is simply illogical to say that somebody else controls my fate when I’ve reaped consequences I don’t like because of actions nobody forced me to commit. At this point, the argument becomes about escaping consequences we don’t like. But how far are we going to push this? If we are allowed to avoid unwanted consequences, what else are we allowed to do in the name of “choice”?

View Comments to ““Punished with a baby”?”

Meade 25 April 2008 at 10:44 pm #

I think the real issue here is that we should oppose the facebook group Hillary Clinton stop running for president and make me a sandwich
Meade 25 April 2008 at 10:59 pm #

Since this post is actually about the video I’ll point out what he actually says. He says he wants absincence only education to teach his daughters morals. He says he also wants them to know about contraceptives because they may make a mistake.

It’s very clear here the mistake is having sex, NOT getting pregnant because the context of what he’s talking about is teaching both abstinence only education AND safe sex practices. It’s clear abortion is not being referenced because he doesn’t want his daughter “punished with an STD” abortion does not prevent STD’s but condoms do.

He doesn’t want them to get an STD or get pregnant should they make the mistake of having sex. The point of what he’s saying is that contraceptives are a safeguard to prevent pregnancy should teaching the moral of abstinence fail. At no point does he mention abortion or endorse abortion as a contraceptive. Listen to his actual words, he doesn’t mention abortion. These words could just as easily be spoken by a prolife candidate who believes in teaching abstinence and contraceptives.

If you’re going to attack Barack do it for actually being prochoice, not for this statement which doesn’t really deal with his prochoice views. An attack I’ll actually join you in.

If you don’t believe in teaching about contraceptives attack him for that because it’s actually what this video is about.
Doug 25 April 2008 at 11:23 pm #

In this instance, I agree that he is not alluding to abortion as a contraceptive. However, I am speaking to the larger societal problem of avoiding consequences we have brought on ourselves. The very fact that he doesn’t want his daughters to suffer the consequences of a risk they knew they were taking very much concerns me. It’s simply evidence that our society is moving closer every day to a nanny state.

I’m all for education, really. If we teach abstinence, protection, timing, seriousness of sexuality, and provide every opportunity for teenagers to make decisions on their own, they’ve already “chosen” the path they want to take. They’ve already taken the risk. To allow them to simply erase their so-called “mistake” is to do them a disservice and teach them that consequences aren’t worth taking seriously.

As I’ve said over and over, these statements are not “prooftexts,” as it were. But they do reveal pieces of his philosophy concerning life, abortion, individual rights, etc.
av 26 April 2008 at 11:59 am #

I want to also point out that I think you missed the point I was trying to make Doug. There is a difference between understanding an opponents position and agreeing with it. Your comments indicate that you refuse trying to understand it because you don’t agree with it. I hope we will have more meaningful discussion in the future. Why? Because none of us are perfect and discussion is how we learn to challenge our own understandings and to learn how to dialog more convincingly with those who hold other understandings of the world.
Shiree 26 April 2008 at 9:46 pm #

av-

Doug and I both agree with you that there is a difference between understanding and agreeing. I think the confusion for us has come in that we were having discussion with folks we thought we like-minded and continued to hear defense of the “other side.” We both have much contact with people of different perspectives than our own and have found many of them to be quite adept at stating their own beliefs.

Thanks for engaging in meaningful discussion. We agree that it is helpful and worthwhile!
Rob Hulson 27 April 2008 at 9:03 am #

As I understand Senator Obama’s remarks from the video, it seems to me like he is setting up his daughters for failure. While it comes off sounding like a good intention, the teaching of contraceptives in the case of failure of abstinence probably does more to undermine abstinence than support it.

Picture Obama telling a man who is involved with his daughter, “Now, I expect you to treat my daughter well and not take advantage of her eagerness to please you. That’s very important. But, if you do end up making a ‘mistake in judgment,’ I would expect you to use protection.” The intention is to motivate the man to treat his daughter well, but the result will be that he’ll be picking up some condoms “just in case.” He has been set up for failure because even though sex is not desired by the father, *protected* sex is preferred to getting pregnant and therefore has a kind of “goodness” associated with it, even if it’s not as desirable as abstinence. And believe me, if a horny young man thinks there’s any goodness to protected non-marital sex, his mind will probably do whatever twisting it has to in order to condone his hormonal urges and use those condoms.

It’s like waving the white flag, when we should be fighting harder to say, “Look, sex before marriage *is inside of your control*. *You* are responsible for your actions. Even contraceptives have a failure ratio. Sex should normally lead to children (that’ll create a firestorm, and I acknowledge that it has other delicious purposes!), and until you’re ready for that, you should treat each other with respect and become very acquainted with this other person enough to be committed to them for life.”

Basically, teaching that non-marital sex is wrong and entirely avoidable because you are a responsible human being, and marital sex is desirable and normally carries good consequences with it, is what should be happening. But we think this is impossible or difficult. Of course it’s difficult. So was teaching that not only the slave trade but slavery *itself* was wrong in the 1800s. But there were people like Wilberforce who fought through tons of consternation, lectures on how he was “out of touch” with the social and financial implications of his beliefs. But he fought because it was right, and what he sowed, he eventually.

What Obama is sowing is very dangerous. We’ve just grown accustomed to hearing it.
Rob Hulson 27 April 2008 at 11:24 am #

We should also clarify what is meant by “abstinence only.” Meade, I don’t know you nor do I know where you stand on these issues. I think you’re capturing what Senator Obama is saying here fairly well when you summarized it this way,

> It’s very clear here the mistake is having sex, NOT getting pregnant because the context of what he’s talking about is teaching both abstinence only education AND safe sex practices.

Let’s examine this. What does it mean to teach “abstinence only” AND “safe sex practices”? When he uses the word “only” and follows it up with “and,” doesn’t his “and” nullify the “only”? Shouldn’t he say that he is in favor of teaching “abstinence preferred”? Senator Obama can make these statements that gets some heads nodding and hands clapping, because it makes sense that you don’t want your 16 year old having sex (so you teach abstinence), but you *really* don’t want your 16 year old pregnant or STD’d (so you teach contraceptive sex). It’s logical and taps into the fears of his listeners. But it’s washing our hands of responsibility to raise our own children in such a way that they *will* abstain from non-marital sex. And make no mistake, when an authority figure in your life tells you that there’s a way to have sex without the most undesirable of consequences (pregnancy or STDs), many are going to believe that and do it. It now matters no longer how bad non-marital sex is, because ultimately people fear pregnancy and STDs.

My parents never gave me “safe sex practices” as an option. It was abstinence OR sex. *That* is abstinence *only*. Safe sex wasn’t another form of sex, it was just that: sex. The fact that you’re trying to avoid a bad consequence while indulging in the activity only made the giving in of sexual desires *worse*.

To teach abstinence only is to do just that: teach abstinence as the only form of “safe sex.” What we communicate to kids when we give them safe sex practices — like condoms, diaphragms, pills, and patches — is: “This is *safe*.” That will eventually translate into “It’s okay” for many, many kids. Once you’ve made room for that wrong thought, no amount of preaching the value of abstinence is going to undo the damage of saying that contraceptive sex is “safe.” I’d rather have safe sex than no sex, thank-you-very-much. Having cake and eating it, too? Sign me up. All the benefit and none of the responsibility.

Doug, you hit it here for me when you said,

> Since I am the one who is responsible for my actions, I must be prepared for consequences that I may dislike, or for which I did not plan. It is how we respond to these situations that makes the difference in our hearts.

*That’s* what I’d rather teach kids. Educating them by making them carry around fake babies, for example, will at best 1) make them use condoms when they have sex; probably, 2) foster a dislike for children and make them want to shun the responsibility of parenting; and at worst, 3) when they have unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy, the man will run away because he doesn’t want to go through every day having a wretched little *thing* interrupting his fun time.

Instead of owning up to the wonder and beauty of responsibly caring for a little human being, we end up making that reward a very bad thing. I’d rather teach sowing and reaping in a way that eliminates the “out” of indulging and dodging responsibility. *You* are responsible for your actions, and the sooner parents instill that kind of ethic in kids, the better. Instead, we turn to the government to teach our kids that protected sex is at least better than unprotected?

I should really blog about this sometime. ;o)
Shiree 27 April 2008 at 11:47 am #

Thanks, Rob. Agreed!
Doug 27 April 2008 at 12:01 pm #

To be fair, Rob, I think Obama corrected himself when he slipped with the word “only.” But your point still remains. Good explanation and assessment, though.
Shiree 27 April 2008 at 1:33 pm #

Rob- I like what you say. I also realize that the reality in America is that parents are NOT teaching the conservative values you and I grew up with. Soooo very many kids are left to field these tough issues on their own and so to end this debate by saying, “Parents need to teach kids the best possible option–no sex–and end it there,” leaves so many lives untouched because there are so many kids who do not have parents who will do this for them. And what parents fail to do for their kids, someone else will surely do for them, be it their peers, their schools, the media, pop culture, and/or the government. It’s a sad reality of our changing culture. But as sexual freedom continues to grow in our culture (something conservatively minded Christians like us can educate our kids against) the reality is that our culture as a whole will look for solutions to the negative effects of rampant sexuality rather than looking to curb careless sexuality itself. Thus we have campaigns to educate people on safe sex practices. And so the cycle goes: greater sexual freedom leads to greater need for solutions that support greater sexual freedom. I agree with you that, ultimately, the solution is abstinence (less sexual freedom–or better said, freedom through purity, which pulls on the Biblical definition of freedom). I am just so sad and disheartened to acknowledge that I often fail to believe that our culture, where it is today, is willing to embrace such a high teaching. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we stop promoting it. By all means, NO!! We must persevere in the truth in the hopes that it will reach the hearts of even a few. But I am so saddened that so many people will never arrive at a point in their lives where the teaching that has worked so well for you and me will make sense to them. It is just too completely counter-culture. And so what then for these people? Do we leave them to STDs and unwanted pregnancy, or do we promote sexual education, realizing that it’s only second best?
Doug 27 April 2008 at 2:09 pm #

Unfortunately, such beliefs are seen as “imposing your morals on everyone else.” It’s ignored that “safe sex education” tactics are just the same thing. It’s a moral issue, so SOMEBODY’s morals are being imposed on others, even of that somebody’s is a more “open” set of morals. It’s still an imposition.
Rob Hulson 27 April 2008 at 3:25 pm #

Shiree, my post was idealistic and left many things unsaid. It *is* the responsibility of parents to train their kids correctly and holding up a banner of biblical sexuality resulting in a changed culture is not likely going to happen overnight but rather through the spreading of Gospel light held up by servants who will be ridiculed, tarred, and feathered.

You and I both know that t’s never right to say, “Parents need to teach their kids better,” and just *leave it there.* If I believe the Gospel, if I believe 1 John that the one who is born of God will walk in the light of love, then I believe that “Parents need to teach their kids better” is only the *starting point*. To just “leave it there” like so many Christians do in conversations at church, in private conversations, and even on blogs is to come to a tragic error. Once we’ve come to see what the truth of the situation is, we must now start devising ways in which we can spread that truth in an honest, compelling, and loving way, insofar as it depends on us. In this, we *must* be counter-cultural; not in a harsh or unloving way, but in a truth=speaking, winsome, and forthright way.

It takes true roots of endurance to fight a fight like that. We all have opportunities to spread this truth. And if Wilberforce could do it to end something as financially viable and supported like slavery, why can’t God raise up other Wilberforces today who labor and sacrifice in the cause of truly loving children by telling them the truth about the wonderful gift of sex, as well as the wonderful gift of child-bearing and the valuable life of the defenseless unborn?

All that to say, by no means am I saying that parents must do their jobs and that’s all there is to it. Parents have to be trained. Parents who happen to be teachers in public schools have to be trained. People’s hearts need to be changed. But if a culture that largely condoned slavery could be turned in 30-40 years by the relentless truth-heralding of many people, including Wilberforce, why are we so pessimistic that it couldn’t happen 30-40 years from now for the gross acceptance of faithless sex?
Shiree 27 April 2008 at 4:04 pm #

Yes, you’re right. No matter how we respond to societal problems, we will promote values. There is no such thing as a “value-free” perspective or approach. So then I suppose if we as believes see abstinence as the best solution, we must promote it, knowing that it will often fall on deaf ears. Rather than softening the weight of our message, our energy is better spent looking for relevant and effective ways to deliver it.

I think of the scripture, Matthew 11:17. “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the market places and calling out to others: ‘We played a flute for you and you did not dance; we sang a dirge and you did not mourn.’” I suppose the reference here is to the Jews who refused to respond to Jesus, but I think a parallel can be drawn to our culture today.
Rob Hulson 27 April 2008 at 7:22 pm #

> Rather than softening the weight of our message, our energy is better spent looking for relevant and effective ways to deliver it.

Exactly. Well said. )
Meade 28 April 2008 at 9:00 pm #

I though this was ironic since you proved our point in your argument against our point. These are both your words:

“The discussion evolved far enough for somebody to say that pro-lifers would be controlling the fate of a pregnant woman who wishes to have an abortion. This is simply twisted reasoning.”

“It’s a moral issue, so SOMEBODY’s morals are being imposed on others, even of that somebody’s is a more “open” set of morals. It’s still an imposition.”

Making abortion illegal IS control. It’s control I’m for but that doesn’t mean it isn’t control.
Shiree 28 April 2008 at 9:46 pm #

Well, fine, I can agree that making abortion illegal is control, but then we must also be willing to say that making certain drugs illegal or making rape illegal or making theft illegal is also control.
Doug 28 April 2008 at 9:46 pm #

I meant control of one’s fate, not control in general. The context of the conversation was about forcing people to “keep” their unwanted babies.
Meade 28 April 2008 at 9:57 pm #

Shiree: I agree with you and am against all those things too. The point is it’s all control one way or the other.

Doug: That’s a good distinction to make. I don’t know where/if the line exists between laws that control fate and simple morality.
Shiree 28 April 2008 at 10:16 pm #

Is control always bad?
Meade 29 April 2008 at 8:13 am #

That’s my point Shiree. I assume people understand that if I say I am for something I think it’s good and if I’m against something I think it’s bad. (Part of my consternation at being asked if I’m pro-life,)

To quote myself again “THE POINT is it’s all control one way or the other.” Arguing with this point of mine is one of the major thesis of the “Punished with a Baby” post.
Shiree 29 April 2008 at 2:47 pm #

Ok, it just seems you haven’t wanted to be pinned down on some of this stuff, which is just fine if you’re at a point where being pinned down is premature or uncomfortable. It just leaves me feeling confused–though perhaps wrongly. May I “psycho-babble” for a bit? I know that there have been many times in my life where I have found myself between two opposing positions on an issue. Rather than taking a decisive stance, I have attempted to find a middle position that could accommodate the divergent views that were simultaneously alive in me. I guess I jumped to the conclusion that you were doing this with abortion and perhaps I projected my own remnants of inner tension onto your comments. If I did so wrongly, I ask you to forgive me. I’m still as confused as ever about your decisive stance on abortion. Yes, I know you’re pro life but I don’t know what that precisely means to you (yes I do have some elements of post-modernism alive in me and “contextualized meaning making” is certainly among them). Perhaps I brought my own baggage to your words and missed your points completely. Again, I ask your pardon. And again, I state the discomfort that I experience in these kinds of debates. I have no idea if you’re truly hacked off or if you’re just playing out the logical fallacies you see in our arguments. I hope all of that makes sense
Meade 29 April 2008 at 3:24 pm #

Not angry at all. Maybe defensive – sorry. Confused a lot cause I can’t figure out why I’ve been hard to pin down.

I’m definitely committed on these issues and not still weighing both sides. I’m pro-life and by that I mean I’m against abortion. It means I am for reversing Roe V. Wade.
Meade 29 April 2008 at 3:26 pm #

Maybe the confusion has come from my attempts to understand the pro-choice position being taken as support for the position.
Shiree 29 April 2008 at 3:45 pm #

Glad you’re not angry. I’m not either. I can understand “defensive.” No problem there by me.
I think I’ve learned in my interactions with people to never take things for granted. If someone doesn’t come right out and say something, I’ve learned not to make assumptions (especially in clinical work, but in general as well). So perhaps we just really wanted to hear you say what you said above: “I’m pro life, I’m against abortion, and I want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.” SO I guess that’s why we kept pushing, or I should speak for myself I suppose. I just really wanted to hear you say it straight out. It’s just way too easy to hide behind words. If, however, you were just attempting to understand the pro-choice perspective, that’s great. I think we took it as if you and others were trying to educate us on what pro-choicers think. Doug, especially, knows quite well from working in a very liberal environment and engaging these debates daily. I also have been around, so to speak, and didn’t feel I needed to have the other side explained to me. So I guess we took it as if you (and others) were trying to illustrate the logic of the other side, and in doing so, giving credence to it. It appeared you were making concessions–ones that we felt were dangerous. But we may have misread you. We never meant to do that.

At any rate, it’s all in good fun and for the betterment of us all. Between you and me, Meade (and the rest of the world who reads this blog), there was a time in my life when I was much more liberal on the issue of abortion. I had fallen into some logical fallacies on the issue and mostly in the name of building bridges with those different from myself. I am learning that it’s possible to vehemently disagree while also enjoying cordial, even close, relationships–and in this realization I have found the freedom to be much more overt with my conservative views even while among liberally minded people. I feel more genuine as a person, my relationships go deeper and there’s no confusion about what anyone thinks (generally speaking). So, just to be clear, I am NOT attempting to project any of this on you. I’m simply confessing my own mistakes. We’re all prone–especially as we attempt to be IN the world.
Doug 29 April 2008 at 5:53 pm #

I think my own discomfort with the way the discussion was going was due to knowing that there are some (at least one that I know of) in our own class who are pro-choice. Knowing the field of interests and work that you and Amy are in, it wouldn’t have surprised me if you were along the same lines. I’ve heard many outrageous things (on both ends of the spectrum) come from members of our class that have made me do a double-take. None of them had been from you until our vague conversation. Always you have made a great impression on me with the way you say things, your way of teaching, and the “theological company” you keep (Keller, Lewis, et al).
Shiree 29 April 2008 at 6:10 pm #

Okay, I’m laughing cuz I just had a thought: “Meade is probably thinking that if I’ve learned not to make assumptions then why did I assume that he may not agree with me on abortion?” What a tricky thing it is to states one’s view!! No matter what a person says, there seems to be room to be taken wrongly. Argh!
Meade 29 April 2008 at 8:50 pm #

That’s the nature of internet posts.

Doug, much of what’s taking place in our class I think is a recovery from fundamentalism. There are two popular theological exits out: emergent theology and reformed theology. I’m of the latter (aside from end times) but many in our class are coping by moving towards emergent theology. I think in the end this won’t be of help for various reasons. One is that some “new” emergent theology is just old liberal theology. In any case I can see why some of our class mates might move in that direction possibly out of reaction to some of fundamentalism’s opposite errors.

Lot’s of reformed theology isn’t palatable because of the guys who believe it. I feel like if they met a nice reformed guy they’d find it more palatable. Ie. Keller. Anyway.
Doug 29 April 2008 at 8:58 pm #

Before I started seminary, I wrestled with many of those views. Not abortion, but I did contemplate for a few weeks about the possibility of being pro-choice but anti-abortion. It didn’t work out in my head. I immersed myself in other “emergent” views, and I came out better for it, though in the end I’m somewhere between those two “exits” you described.

A book you may enjoy is “The Next Reformation: Why Christianity Must Embrace Postmodernity.” Note the word is not “postmodernism,” but “postmodernity.” It’s a very good comparison of the Reformation and the Emergent Church.
Meade 29 April 2008 at 9:34 pm #

INteresting. I’m pretty favorable to postmodernity.
Shiree 30 April 2008 at 8:22 am #

Same here.