We want our children to practice chastity. Chastity is not necessarily or simply complete abstinence; that would be celibacy. Chastity would refer to the proper setting for sexual activity being between husband and wife, and even then, it is not an unlimited free-for-all. Sexuality is a beautiful gift from God and not mere entertainment for which we should merely use another person. Since our children are just that, children, and are not usually married, we want them to not be sexually active until they are married.

As for the unattainability of abstinence, complete or otherwise: what if we applied the same “logic” to other ideals or even rules of behavior? Suppose we had laws against murder, but decided that we’d never get all the people to abstain from murder and so we therefore decided to repeal all laws against murder, since some people are always going to choose to commit it.

Oh, wait, we do have laws against murder, even though there have always been and will always be some who choose to not live up to ideal behavior and choose to murder instead.

And who says we don’t want to care for women and their babies? The pro-life movement includes programs, clinics, and volunteers who work to help and support women who find themselves tempted to opt for abortions of various types, not because they are exercising choice, but because they feel like they have no choice.

Don’t want to educate? Exactly what do you mean by educate? Do you mean: fill children’s heads with distorted ideology that attempts to convince them that they will be happy, fulfilled and free if they engage in unbridled sexual gratification, followed by easily obtained abortion? Is that what you mean by education?

They don’t want to care for these mothers and children. They don’t want to educate. Do they have any other ideas?

I’m kind of surprised the courts actually approved this.