in which sabrina might almost be mistaken for a libertarian

[sophiaserpentia]

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

... Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.

... The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups ... most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group.

"We wanted to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents," Horn said. "It's a reminder."

from Abstinence message goes beyond teens

Let that sink in for a moment. The government is paying people to tell adults they shouldn't have sex out of wedlock. Anyone want to guess who is going to be particularly targeted here? Here's a hint: have you ever been to a government assistance office?

The government does not exist to tell you how to live your life. The government exists to facilitate the decisions you, as a free person, make.

The government does not exist to tell you what language you may or may not speak, the government does not exist to tell you what religion you may or may not practice, the government does not exist to tell you what chemicals to put in your body or not put in your body, the government does not exist to tell you to have children or not have children, and the government sure as hell does not exist to tell you who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.

Some of these choices might not be as economically efficient as others, but economic efficiency is not the end-all-be-all of human existence, not even close.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

If I choose to have a child that I can't afford, and seek government assistance, then I don't believe that it's unreasonable for the government to ask that the adult take reasonable precautions not to have children. I happen to believe that charities ought to offer incentives to encourage reproductive responsibility.

"Reproductive responsibility" should mean the same thing for people at all social strata. There are too many people on earth and it's good for us on the whole to encourage reproductive restraint. Also, each child carried to term places a physical burden on the woman who bears her.

But at the same time, here in the US, the political party which primarily advocates rollback of access to contraception and abortion simultaneously advocates the forced sterilization of women on public assistance. There are many various sinister undertones to this, but the thing is, we should not be making it harder for poor women to have children while at the same time making it harder for middle or upper class women to NOT have children. It should be one policy for all.

Why? Because our society sees children not as future contributors to society, but as an economic burden. Policymakers see children, especially poor children, as numbers, statistics to be reduced, or something that keeps an otherwise productive employee from sitting at their desk like a good little drone.

A society that does not love and value its children is insane! These children grow up to become adults with a seething anger.