After listening to both sides of the debate "use" this Abstinence Only study that was conducted against a sampling of Black kids in Philly to advance their own agenda - I see that BOTH sides are guilty of not telling the complete facts of the situation. Since it is necessary to have our model be as close a representation of the real world forces as possible - they both fail to effectively achieve the common goal: "Limit Teen Pregnancy - Because It Often Places The Parents And Child At A Great Disadvantage As Compared To Delivery By Parents That Are More Established In Their Lives"
MSNBC: Life Interrupted: The True Cost Of The Uptick In Teen Pregnancy Rates
Ironically both sides claim to own the moral high ground. One says that it is immoral to abort "a gestating child" the other says that it is immoral to "bring an unwanted child into this world and allow him to suffer as society turns its back".
Here is my view from observation:
- These young people need to be maintained inside of the confines of a structure (a framework). This will allow them to consider their actions in the context of some obligation to a greater concept than themselves (and their desires of the flesh at the moment)
- The adults in their lives are the key enabling agents who are charged with defining, communicating and enforcing this said structure. It is clear that in the void of this structure our children who are just learning their world will often develop their own set of practices and beliefs that are askew to the high order living standards that we as a society strive for
- If these agents of cultural control fail to intervene then the cycle will continue. The "unwanted child" will one day become the child, untethered to a higher purpose. She and he will one day become PARENTS, having borne a child and then later on the ADULTS who are failing to maintain this said structure upon the next generation.
- The greater society has an obligation to at least provide "seed resources" by which the adults that are more proximate can leverage to build up the structure. The ultimate responsibility to educate and control these young people, however are the adults who directly engage them in their families and communities. In physics as distance increases the attenuation of a force is observed. This is the case with the force to imprint a certain consciousness upon our young people. Thus those who are closest must be this force as they are also the one's who will benefit the most from the proper alignment of the people in their community.
- The construction of this structure and the enforcement therein will make that which is spiraling out of control and thus becoming "the norm" once again become "the exception". With these outcomes as the "exception" they can be more effectively managed.
- Those who believe that they can erect an all encompassing system of cultural enforcements that will use its moral girth to one day control young people so that no "exceptions" will ever be had - should be seen as an equal threat to those who are bound to their theories that the government can step in to replace the cultural forces and thus provide an array of services to the person without this person ever having to live up to a higher level of self-control - the state doing so out of its obligatory mandate to provide for all.
The definition of a bigot is one who is so entrenched in his own theory that he is unable to observe real world evidence that contradicts his theories and thus are unwilling to change so that his outcomes might be enhanced.
We have too many bigots engaged in the battle over the reproductive rights issue with sexually active young people. They want to be 'right' more than they want to effectively reduce the instances.