The Planned Parenthood
July 6th, 2008 at 02:09am Mark Noonan
R. R. Reno over at First Things has some interesting insights into the alleged “pregnancy pact”:
…it seems pretty clear that some teenage girls in Gloucester wanted to get pregnant, talked about it with their friends, and succeeded in conceiving. The school offers free pregnancy testing, and the school nurse reported girls celebrating when the tests came back positive. So, official pact or not, there has been an upsurge in Gloucester of something that our oh-so-inclusive age finds alien and threatening: planned teen pregnancies.
One predictable reaction has focused on sex education, or more accurately the bemoaned lack thereof. If only the students had better information about the real consequences of sexual intercourse! If only the school health clinic were permitted to dispense birth control pills! If only Gloucester didn’t suffer from the repressive mentality of a majority Catholic culture!
Hello. We’re talking about girls who wanted to get pregnant. Is it so difficult to notice that girls who want to get pregnant are not victims of supposedly prudish culture that won’t teach children the truth about sex and give them condoms?
Another reaction is less easily dismissed: It’s not about sex but parenting. If only these girls knew the extraordinary difficulties of raising a child, then they never would have done such a silly thing! So the way to prevent teen pregnancies is to dramatize the challenges of motherhood, especially single motherhood.
Mr. Reno says he has to chuckle about these reactions - especially the suggestion of “if they only knew”, that would have stopped them. My reaction is this - given what we teach our children these girls did absolutely nothing wrong.
Now, as a Christian I can say quite properly that what the girls - and the boys who impregnated them - did was wrong. But our society is, at least in popular culture, entirely post-Christian. These girls violated very basic Christian morality, but what they did is entirely in keeping with the morality prevalent in our public square in 2008. To throw up our hands in horror and ask how this could have happened is akin to a drunk asking how he could have passed out on the floor again: We tell the kids how to have sex; we refuse to tell them not to have sex; we refuse to impart to them Judeo-Christian morality; we do impart to them the concept that “right” and “wrong” are mere social constructs subject to our individual will; we place no moral opprobrium on those who engage in extramarital sex and/or have children out of wedlock - and in conjunction with this we propagandise them massively via books, magazines, music, movies and television that sex is just the coolest thing anyone can do. What is surprising is that many of our youngsters still refuse to be drawn into this sort of thing - not at all surprising that large numbers of them get into it.
People make rational decisions based upon the information they have - we are, after all is said and done, creatures who have reason at our command…the only thing which can be different from one person to another is the sort of information they have to base their decisions upon. Can anyone out there demonsrate that these girls had information which in any way, shape or form would dissuade them from their actions? Only if its Judeo-Christianity…and we don’t know if they had any of it at all or, if they did, how strongly they had been instructed in it vis a vis how strongly they were instructed in the morality of our public square. If this event in any way disturbs you, then there’s only one thing for you to do - insist upon a greater application of Judeo-Christian values.
Entry Filed under: Life Issues, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
16 Comments
1. extramedium | July 6th, 2008 at 3:16 am
In spite of all the ills we have as a society, it’s still possible, and necessary, to be a good parent. It’s the parent’s job to impart values to the child, be they judeo/christian, hindu, muslim, humanist, etc. - not society’s.
To look at it another way, you wouldn’t say it’s impossible to be a Christian because you are surrounded by sin, would you? Difficult sure, but not impossible. The challenges and temptations, in fact, are integral to the journey.
The blame for this falls squarely on the parents. I don’t know if they were rich or poor, Christians or Buddists, educated or high-school dropouts - but in any case, they are personally responsible for the behavior of the minors in their charge. Society is not responsible.
I know some are going to jump in and blame the school system for teaching values contrary to those of the parents, but that’s still a cop out. The school is a microcosm of society, and the values children receive from their parents must be durable enough to resist outside influence - otherwise the child won’t be equipped to deal with real life when they graduate.
2. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 3:29 am
extra,
Perhaps - though we don’t know anything about the parents…for all we know they were diligent in instructing their children; but in the face of the relentless popular culture, it could very well be that even the best of parents is unable to cope.
3. extramedium | July 6th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Unable to cope? They should try a little harder.
From what I’ve seen over the past few decades, I’d say the biggest problem is that parents have traded good parenting for a higher standard of living. Rather than living modestly and allowing one parent to stay home at least part time to look after the kids, we insist that we no choice but to have two full time salaries in order to afford our big houses, fancy cars and plasma TVs. Look at the difference at the standard of living between now and the 1970s - a good deal of those gains were made possible by handing children over to schools and day care for parenting.
If a parent were actually at home when the kids are not in school, they’d have a much better handle on what sorts of popular culture their kids are taking in.
4. Pain | July 6th, 2008 at 9:17 am
This battle is long lost to your side Noonan. That sex djinn has long since flown from the bottle and your side lost the cap.
5. Salvador Manella | July 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“Look at the difference at the standard of living between now and the 1970s - a good deal of those gains were made possible by handing children over to schools and day care for parenting.”
The Standard of Living has fallen since the 1970s. If you look at the CPI index, it now takes close to $100.00 dollars to buy what would have cost about $20,00 in 1967. As of the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.
Millions of jobs have been outsourced since the 1970s. Defined Benefit Pension Plans are now replaced with inferior 401(k)s. Unions have been busted. 50% of the bankruptcies are due to escalating health costs. Deregulation of banks and S&Ls cause financial ruin to most Middle-Class families. We have more cool gadgets, but we are saving less money because the cost of living is through the roof.
In 1970 a man could support a family of four on his salary alone. Now it takes both parents working full-time to raise one child.
How can you possibly say things are better?
6. FmrMarine | July 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
p
>>>This battle is long lost to your side Noonan. That sex djinn has long since flown from the bottle and your side lost the cap.>>>
THAT is the reason we have a world wide AIDS problem along with a 78% illegitimacy problem in the inner city.
Nice job liberals you are doing SATANS work well.
7. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Pain,
No, not at all - those who most resolutely joined the so-called “sexual revolution” are dying off without having had many children…we Christians (and Jews, etc) who have remained faithful will inherit the ruins you on the secular side are creating, just as we did 15 centuries ago during the last outbreak of truly depraved paganism, and we’ll just start again once your like have gone the way of the dinosaur, again.
8. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
extra,
Certainly rampant consumerism has been a blight on families…I have seen the families where mom and dad both work massive hours just to maintain a standard of living which allows for everything except, of course, time for family. As a society, since the dawn of the Industrial Revoluiton, we have bought the false ideal of ever rising material wealth as being the talisman of happiness - and this goes for the most rampant capitalist as well as the most dogmatic socialist. I’ve got a free market cure for that, but no time to put it out right here (and, indeed, I might well turn it into a book).
With all that, however, I do believe that our nauseating popular culture plays a much larger role in these social pathologies. The reason a toothpaste company puts out the same ad again and again is because they are working on the margins - that small percentage of people who can be swayed by repetition…but if a person can be switched from Colgate to Crest by repetition, then he can also be switched from sexual purity to sexual depravity.
Its great that we do have parents - most of them, in fact - who try to train their kids how to deal with the pressures of modern society…but a caller to a radio show I was listening to the other day had a great observation on this: we train firefighters to fight fires and then we send them off to battle the flames…but while they are fighting the flames we don’t throw more wood on the fire on the theory that they are trained to fight fires and thus more fire is ok. Essentially, we’re throwing more wood on the fire - or more specific, more nastiness on the nastiness of popular culture. Its not even fair to the kids to say “wait til marriage (or at least until strong commitment)” while exposing them to 10,000 instances of “get it on, dude!”.
9. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Salvador,
Indeed - which is why I subscribe to one bit of conservative kookery: return to the gold standard. Though, of course, I don’t think its really a kooky idea - I think we need to maintain the value of our money and a fixed ratio of dollars to bullion is the best means of doing so. This way we can short circuit the speculators who rob us of our labor by maniuplating currencies and commodities.
10. extramedium | July 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Salvador,
I’m not saying things are better for a particular segment of the population vs. another. I’m merely saying that the minimum standard of living for Americans across the board has gone up.
By an increase in the standard of living, I mean things like the average house size, number of cars per family and the inflation adjusted cost of the family car(s). On just the first point, the average size of new single family home has increased dramatically since WWII: 1950 - 983 sq ft; 1970 - 1500 sq ft; 2004 - 2349 sq ft.
But statistics aside, let me ask you - don’t you know some dual earner families who could in fact afford to let one parent stay home if they cut back on non-necessities? My argument is that they do just the opposite, by choice.
11. extramedium | July 6th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Mark,
All right, let’s take your argument as read - in spite of the best efforts of good parents, a nauseating and overwhelming popular culture is simply too strong for them to overcome. Our children’s values have been laid to waste by a depraved and immoral advertising, media and entertainment industry who want nothing more than to see them fornicating at every waking hour.
What exactly are we going to do about that, short of asking government to solve the problem by putting more regulations in place? I presume that government is not the answer because only a liberal would offer such a solution, and you can’t possibly be suggesting that. Also, I’ll need to ask you to honor our “mind your own business” agreement as it relates to telling parents how to raise their own kids. What should we do beside fretting about it?
12. Pain | July 6th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
7. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
And exactly noonan how many of these “inheritor offspring” have you contributed to march forth with the banner of morality?
And who exactly are the “et cetera” you refer to after Christians and Jews? Mormons? Muslims? Hindus? Whom?
13. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
extra,
Its really rather simple - we can’t, for the most part, tell people what to do but we can tell them where and when they are permitted to do it. It is, for instance, a reasonable infringement upon personal freedom to ban smoking in movie theaters and other places where people are packed in rather tightly for safety reasons (leaving aside any arguments about long term health risks). We’re not telling anyone they can’t smoke - smoke 10 packs a day, if you like; just not in the theater. This sort of thing holds true throughout human affairs.
How would this work in practice as we try to limit popular culture’s perverse display? Well, a good example I have is a local one - I don’t know how it goes in your town, but here in Las Vegas we have a company called “Adult Super Store” - pornography of all types is there for the asking. Ok, legitimate business and they pay their taxes - but they also pop up everywhere and they also paint their buildings a bright blue with gigantic white lettering saying “Adult Superstore”…how is a parent to explain what that is to an inquiring youngster? I don’t want to shut them down - but I do want them to be less noticable, and I’d like to ensure that they are within strictly confined zones of operations - so, the “Adult Superstore” down off the Strip next to the nudie bars, no problem…the one brightly visible to residential neighborhoods on Rancho, thats gotta go…or, at least become far less visible. See how it works?
More examples:
The most violent and disgusting video game ever made? Fine - hope you make a million dollars off sales…but you’re not going to sell that in any place where anyone under the age of 18 can obtain it.
The most disgusting rap song about rape and cop killing ever? Knock yourself out - but that isn’t being broadcast between 5 am and 11 pm.
A horrific movie with masses of gratuitous sex and violence? Maybe it’ll win an Oscar - but you won’t show it in a theater which at any time shows movies to kids 17 and under.
You think that what a 12 year old needs is sex education which is value neutral and which carefully explains how contraceptives work, that there are ways to have sex which limits the chances of pregnancy and where abortion is available? Odd idea you got there, but its not my place to tell you that you can’t do that - heck, if the School Board agrees, it can even be taxpayer subsidised…but you’ll do it on a Saturday and the kids in attendance will be those who are brought to the class by their parent or guardian two weeks after a full, written description is sent to all the parents and guardians for the school concerned.
On and on, with no censorship - you are not limited in what you can say, film, record, print…but you are prevented from having easy access to the kids because its not for you, but for the parents, to decide what their children will be exposed to.
There is, however, one thing we can do which will actually stop a certain sort of action. You see, the explosion in pornographic films stems from a 1970’s court case which essentially said it wasn’t a crime for someone to perform a sex act on film for money - normally, of course, the word for someone who is paid for sex is called “prostitution” and that is illegal in most of the United States with no constitutional issues involved. I’d get that ruling overturned - I realise that the porn people would just turn to CGI, but at least we’d stop the absurdity of things like the porno conventions where these sad, sick people gather to laud each other for their depravity - and, meanwhile, also go a long way towards mainstreaming such appalling behaviour.
14. extramedium | July 7th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Mark,
I don’t mind any of those things - most are just a matter of enforcing the laws we have on the books today. With regard to Vegas, you’ve got quite a challenge to make that place safe for children’s eyes, but you could push for tighter zoning and signage regulations.
The gaping hole in your plan of control is going to be the internet, of course - but that doesn’t mean we can’t tighten up on the “old” media sources until they’ve run their course. Ditto on the professional pornography industry - what remains is on a fast track to irrelevancy. If you want to call it prostitution when somebody is paid for it in America, I’m happy to get behind that.
15. Jay Gaultieri | July 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
It looks like there may not have been a girls-swearing-with-crossed-fingers-with-their-BFFs pact to have babies as such, and if there was one it may have been made after the girls got pregnant. The high school doctor and nurse had resigned last year after the high school forbid the distribution of condoms without parental consent, and teenage girls in heavily Catholic communities getting pregnant is not new by any means.
http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_172230028.html
Government-funded abstinence education has managed to cause a recent rise in the teen pregnancy and STD rate after a decade-and-a-half of decline. I can tell you first hand that abstinence programs don’t work because I’ve had sex with more than a few girls who took it and We used condoms. Those who receive abstinence ed, take the chastity pledge, take part in a purity ball are just as likely if not more to have sex as those who don’t take part in the true-love-waits movement.
The reason for it’s failure is pretty simple–it sensationalizes the very thing it teaches kids to avoid. If someone is told not to think about a pink-polka-dotted elephant, that person will think about a pink-polka-dotted elephant. The subject is set up for failure right there. Which makes the chastity movement a joke.
And that’s sad.
16. Mark Noonan | July 8th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Extra,
Well, we’ll naturally never get Sin City to be the ideal place to raise kids - but we certainly don’t need to make it worse….we don’t, that is, need to throw more fuel on the fire.
Mostly what I’m about here is the responsible use of the public square - and its not a matter of trying to ban things which are merely offensive, but of trying to prevent money-making enterprises from peddling their wares to the kids with little or no ability of the parents to protect and to correct. The public square is for normal activities which take place in public - unless one wants to say that sex and obscenity are normal in the public square, one has to come ’round to my view…unless one is just a knee-jerk leftist.