Column for April 16, 2009

It is unethical to pay for someone else's irresponsibility

As a parent, I shudder at the thought of someone other than myself teaching my children about sex. I have a boy who is just now asking questions about babies, how his mother is going to get the baby out of her tummy, and wondering how the baby came to be. For those with a Judeo-Christian or even Muslim world-view, there are ethics that go along with the practice of sexual relations. Primarily, I believe that sex education should take place in the home and be received from caring parents and reinforced with the ethics and responsibilities of such.

There are interesting ethical debates surrounding the consequences of sexual activity. Just recently, I have been involved with two in particular. They are not only ethical in nature but also practical civic lessons.

A fellow conservative writer shared a news story on the internet about how an HIV/AIDS prevention program for African nations instituted under President George W. Bush has released data showing that there has been a 10% decrease in the spread of AIDS in those nations since the program began. Sure, a decrease in the spread of any disease is good news. However, I have a serious objection to the program to begin with.

My objection is simply this. I see nowhere in the United States Constitution that empowers our country to simply take money supplied by our tax paying citizens and give it away to other countries, regardless of the "feel good" or even "do good" results. The Constitution's preamble states its purpose; "…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…"[sic] That is it. AIDS prevention in Africa does not fall under any of those categories.

It is therefore illegal and thus unethical to take the hard earned tax dollars of Americans and give them to some third world dictatorship in the hopes of disease prevention, as noble as that goal may be. Disease prevention efforts would be more appropriate if they were in our own nation, since that is more closely aligned with the scope of the Constitution. Even then, I am dubious as to its legality thereunder.

My conservative friend would argue that the program did good and thus was a good move. I argued that the disease is spread by behavior and it is inappropriate for us to spend money in another country for behavior modification. The return argument was of course that a large percentage of AIDS victims in Africa are children that got it from their parents. My retort is simple. Sex is a behavior with consequences. If you have AIDS, do not procreate.

The second example is that my wife and I were at her OBGYN recently for a prenatal checkup. While there, we saw a young couple with two children and another on the way. We heard them say that there was one other child who was not with them. Seeing a young couple having a family is a wonderful thing…or is it?

The family present consisted of a woman with a toddler, a baby no more than 6 months old, and the one on the way was 20 weeks along, so we heard. The mother was obviously taking care of the children. The father is disabled, apparently blind. The couple was paying for their visit through Medicaid. Or more appropriately stated, we taxpayers are paying their medical bills.

I am going to go out on a limb here and surmise that the couple is also getting other government assistance in the form of WIC, food stamps, Social Security disability, and who knows what else. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

For a toddler to have a baby brother or sister so close in age means that the couple procreated soon after the child was born. To have a baby six months old and a 20 week pregnancy means that they procreated yet again shortly after the baby was born. Look…we now know what causes pregnancy. Actually, we have for thousands of years now.

For the taxpayers of this country to pay for a family to live and then to pay for their irresponsible sexual activities is just plain unethical. Birth control would have been a whole lot cheaper than bringing more crumb crunching tricycle motors into this world at public expense.

I am all for helping out others, especially as friends, neighbors, family, and church members. However, when do we draw the line and say that the bad decisions taken by people are not going to be paid for by the general populace? That is a matter of ethics just as much as the moral implications of having sex to begin with.