Our country must draw the line, keep children from having babies

TEENAGERS have to be of a certain age to legally vote, drive a car, serve in the armed forces, get a work permit, be married, even drink in a bar. In many states, they need parental permission to have their ears pierced. Alas, there are no laws or restrictions when it comes to becoming a teenage parent often as not out of wedlock.

Today children in their early teens can give birth, brag about it and wear their parenthood as a mark of distinction and honor, and no one says "boo." Of course, they often expect the taxpayers to support them and their child(ren) or families forever. There is no discussion of responsibility, no outrage or sense of wrongdoing. The experts offer no alternative, positive plan. Nothing. It is a given that society should take care of this army of newborns.

Indeed, one is made to feel guilty and hard-hearted if one opposes the disastrous, permissive mind-set of many so-called leaders and politicians. All they apparently care about is their own image appearing as pseudo-compassionate, not offering any long-term serious solutions. Rather, they posture, fudge, hedge, vacillate and pander not looking at the explosive consequences of our epidemic of out-of-wedlock births and how they are undermining the very fabric of our nation and its survival.

What gives children the right to bear children? Where is that written? We all know society often rewards these misguided teens for having babies by providing them with their own apartments, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. In many high schools there are nurseries designed to accommodate the teenage mother while she supposedly busies herself with furthering her education.

What is wrong with making it illegal to bear a child if you yourself are still a child and cannot support or nurture that baby? Perhaps we need a law that will penalize teenage mothers, not celebrate and reward them. If a child, say, under the age of 18 becomes pregnant, why not consider the following: (1) Make parents financially responsible for their "grandchild" or (2) have the mother give up the baby for adoption.

Certainly, this would be an improvement more kind and humane over what we see today. That is, the wholesale abuse and misuse of children, who are beaten, exploited, deprived, violated and frequently murdered. It would send a message to promiscuous teenagers: Life is sacred, and society will not allow your immoral and selfish attitude to flourish.

It would say, in effect, that such thinking and actions are an enemy of the people. After all, the chances in such situations of mother and child escaping a life of poverty are nil, and who will pay? Despite the superficial and trendy thinking among the media emanating from Hollywood, a baby needs both parents. If people think such a proposal is punitive, then so be it. But so is the ultimate fate punishment of an abused, unloved baby.

We do little to discourage teenagers from having sex. We do bend over backward when girls become pregnant. We stupidly encourage young people to actively pursue sexual activity, saying it's all right; they'll do it anyway; they've got raging hormones, blah, blah, blah. In school we offer them condoms.

Kids are smart. They know all about the programs and entitlements, their "rights" as far as sex and the welfare mentality are concerned. Unfortunately, they know little about parental responsibility. Let's help them and teach them what is right and wrong.

To encourage teenagers to be sexually active, to condone it as "common" and "natural," is to do them (and their unexpected progeny) a great and cruel disservice. It is the ultimate in cynicism and deceit. It is a betrayal of their birthright and future.

James Henderson lives in Milwaukee.

Copyright 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.