Punished With A Baby?

Those of you who are "politically aware" more than likely recognize the words in the title of this post. They come from a recent speech Senator Obama gave in Pennsylvania regarding sexual education for children. In the speech, the Senator was quoted as saying that if his daughters made a "mistake," he would not want them to be "punished with a baby" or "punished with an STD at the age of 16." You can hear the statement for yourself here.

When I first watched the clip, I wondered "whats the big deal?" I will admit the man employed some poor word choice but it was hardly worthy of the media frenzy that followed. Honestly, we all know what he was talking about: a pregnant woman who is not financially or emotionally ready for a child is a problem. It is a problem that no father wants for his daughter.

But is the child really the punishment here? Can someone be punished with a baby? Upon further reflection, I realized that the "big deal" with the senator's speech in Pennsylvania is that it shows he believes the answer to these questions is yes.

In Senator Obama's statement, I see an opinion of prenatal children that is common among pro-choicers - namely: that the unborn child is some sort of aggressor on its mother. The unborn fetus, in this opinion, is something unwanted which shows up in the middle of the night and seeks to harm the mother in some way. After all, she didn't intend to have a child; so what the hell is it doing showing up and growing inside her anyway?

When we look at the fetus this way, it is easy to see how a child could be considered punishment. Punishment for not being careful when having sex or for not abstaining from sex. But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing unnatural or aggressive about conception. It is the most natural result of sexual intercourse. Therefore, someone may become pregnant unwillingly but not unwittingly*. Can we really consider the natural and intended end of something punishment? No, we cannot.

A child is not a punishment the way a sexually transmitted disease is. And to equate the two (as the senator's comments implied) is ludicrous. Sexually transmitted diseases are not the natural outcome of sexual intercourse. The two can seem similar, however, insofar as both can be unwanted. It can certainly seem like a child is a punishment when something other than the child was intended by the intercourse. It is quite unnatural, however, for intercourse to be intended for anything that does not include the possibility of reproduction and therefore unnatural to consider a child a punishment.

The problem is that human beings are trying to redefine their own sexuality; trying to poke and prod it until it will do something new and produce novel results. Unfortunately, sex is an old trick, and no matter how many pills you take or condoms you wear, the purpose and ultimate end of sex is going to be children. The sooner we realize and are at peace with this tried and true fact of life, the sooner we will have more strollers full of "people" and less cribs full of "punishment" in need of a morally acceptable trash can.

I will now climb down from my soap box.

*For the purposes of my argument, I excluded the extreme case of rape.