It really is all about the sex

The New York Times Magazine has a fantastic piece on the forced-pregnancy folks and why they are actively trying to prevent access to birth control methods.

I think this just proves that they are not pro-life, but anti-sex.

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena
state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex.

But what are the ramifications of a society where pregnancy can be planned. Recent studies have shown that since the birth control pill became available the standard of living hasn't just increased for women who could finish school and start a career before popping out rugrats- but also for the men who don't have to drop out of school and get a job to support those rugrats.

And how is that a bad thing?

And then there are the creepy father-daughter purity balls. First- euwwwww. Come on people- the best way for a father to protect his daughter is to teach her that she has more value than her hymen. But let's put this in a little bit of historical perspective. In the good old days girls matured later. Today the average age for a girl to get her period is 12.8, one hundred years ago it was 15.5. In 1890 the average age at which a girl got married was 22. Now it is 25.

So girls used to wait 6 t0 7 years to get married (and we assume lose their virginity). But now the sex for marriage only people expect girls to wait over 12 years between reaching sexual maturity and having sex for the first time. Young women are expected to go to college, get a degree, start a career and then find a nice young man to give their virginity to. We expect them to act like adults by getting an education supporting themselves through college, but they must remain child-like and pure regarding their own bodies. Is it any wonder that one third of all teenage girls get pregnant when we put this kind leash on them?

But really- they keep saying it's all about a culture of life, not at all about keeping those wanton hussies in check. We know that abstinence only programs not only don't work, but make kids less likely to use protection when they do have sex and and therefore more likely to become unexpectedly pregnant. Having children that young interrupts education and leads to less earning potential, not good for babies or parents.

What is the gain from any of this except higher poverty rates and lower education levels? How is that a culture of life?