Dear Editor,
I continue to be surprised by the unfair criticism that is being levelled against Richard Lightbourn for his "tube tying" comments at the recent FNM convention.
First of all, Lightbourn issued a prompt and unconditional apology for his remarks. For those who took issue with his remarks and who are aware of his apology, why is his apology not enough? Why do they find it necessary to continue to berate him?
Second, what is truly wrong with what Lightbourn actually said? After pointing out that "many young women have five and six children many of whom are born out of wedlock" and "many of the fathers of those children have little involvement in the child's upbringing either emotional or financial" and the fact that "the laws of our country and the legal system is such that the father is not likely to be compelled to assist financially in the upbringing of the child", Lightbourn went on to say that "an FNM government would introduce legislation which would enable a court to deduct from a father's paycheck an amount to be paid directly to the mother of the child and in this way the father would consider carefully the consequences of having an unprotected relationship and in all likelihood reduce the number of children born in The Bahamas".
What is wrong about Lightbourn pointing to the incredibly large number of children in our country who are born out of wedlock and proposing a legislative solution to compel fathers to support their children financially?
Immediately after proposing to bring legislation to compel fathers to support their children financially, Lightbourn said: "It is also necessary for us as a nation to consider adopting the lead of several countries in the world which result in an unwed mother having her tubes tied after having more than two children which would in the end result in fewer children being born."
Lightbourn is a lawyer, so I have given him the benefit of the doubt that he knows that any program for Bahamian women to have their tubes tied can only be voluntary (because the constitution protects against women being forced to do so).
Therefore, Lightbourn clearly was not suggesting that the state should force unwed mothers to tie their tubes after having a certain number of children born out of wedlock (as many people are wrongly accusing him of saying).
Accordingly, what would be wrong with a state sponsored program whereby adult unwed mothers (and married mothers) can voluntarily have their tubes tied, at the expense of the state, after they have had a certain number of children? Clearly, nothing is wrong with such a voluntary program, and any reasonable and fair person would conclude that Lightbourn was referring to a voluntary tube tying program.
Lightbourn also made the point that "the state should not have the burden of paying for the upbringing of children". Is he not correct in his statement?
Finally, Lightbourn concluded his remarks by saying that "by adopting such measures, there would be less classrooms needed in the future and less persons coming out of school every year seeking employment and would also result in the mother of these children being able to live a better life not having to bring up so many children". Who can honestly dispute the logical reasoning of that statement?
While Lightbourn addressed the problem of out of wedlock births as a socio-economic issue, children being born out of wedlock is fundamentally a moral issue - the issue of ignoring and violating the God-ordained boundaries for sexual relations, which is marriage.
And having women to tie their tubes after having a certain number of children out of wedlock will not address that moral issue.
Sadly, while people continue to pile unfair criticism on Lightbourn, I think that we are missing a great opportunity to have a national conversation about sexual conduct, the responsibility of fathers and traditional marriage.
The truth is that we as a society need to affirm in word and deed that marriage is the only legitimate context for sexual relations and the birth of children. If such an affirmation is broadly embraced in our country, it will make for a better Bahamas, morally and socio-economically.

- Pastor Cedric Moss

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian