As I continue to seek an explanation for the sharp and sudden rise in the acceptability of out-of-wedlock birth and divorce, I came across a post from talented conservative radio personality Al Mohler. He noted a recent OK! magazine cover about Jamie Lynn Spear's new baby, which definitely played up the joyful side of teen motherhood.
This is an area where conservatives, in my view, have been consistently better than liberals. (Remember the outrage when Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the TV character Murphy Brown for having a baby even though she wasn't married?). Liberals who care about the poor need to remember that out of wedlock birth is one of the major causes of poverty.
But Mohler then goes the next step of criticizing Hollywood for glamorizing premarital sex. In other words: want to stop teen pregnancy? Avoid premarital sex.
This to me points up what ought to be a real dilemma for religious conservatives. Ideally, they'd like to have less premarital sex, less use of contraception, less teen pregnancy, less out-of-wedlock birth, and fewer abortions.
But what if they could win on a few of those by giving in on a few others? Specifically, isn't it likely that if contraception use were higher that teen pregnancy, out of wedlock birth and, most important, abortion would be lower? If that were the case, wouldn't it be morally incumbent on conservatives to lead the way for greater contraception use? To use the moral language of the pro-life movement, aren't those who oppose contraception responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies?
I know that the standard response is that through abstinance you can have it all: less sex, out-of-wedlock births, fewer abortions. But if it could be proven that contraception led to even fewer abortions, wouldn't you have to become aggressive advocates of contraception use?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
To make this clear, I totally support more education about contraceptives.
But to call this "rarely discussed?" Please. This is a well-worn argument that conservatives have heard a billion times before. It isn't going to stick with people who disagree with you -- it will only affirm those who already agree.
Your most flawed argument: "But if it could be proven that contraception led to even fewer abortions, wouldn't you have to become aggressive advocates of contraception use?"
Fewer abortions than what? Not having sex? That's not possible -- and that's what conservatives are aiming for for our teens.
Conservative Christians aren't going to buy the "ends justifies the means" argument if "the means" is something they consider to be a sin. They morally simply cannot fully support it.
I have to commend conservatives here for attempting to go to the source of the issue rather than just sticking a bandage (or condoms) over the gushing wound as it were. Just because children will be getting pregnant less and have fewer STDs if they use protection doesn't mean there aren't different kinds of scars forming through sexual encounters that come too early and too often in their lives. And this worries many Christians (and parents in general!)as much as prenancy and abortion rates. These are the issues that can't be labeled with nice, neat statistics or solved by adoption or abortion or STD medicines.
Here is the real pro-contraceptive education argument:
The reality is, we live in a fallen world. And if we can come at our children from both angles (emphasizing the spiritual and physical benefits of abstinance while making condoms and contraceptive education available) maybe we'll have a chance at fighting this and getting it under control.
I'll be proud to tell my teens that I never had to use a condom because I have only had one partner and I married him. It's an amazing thing that I hope they too can experience.
But I'll also tell them how glad I was that I knew about contraceptives and had access to them as I was trying to figure out who I was and what I believed. I felt I had choices and I understood those choices and that is empowering.
Is it so surprising that when given the choice between sex with a condom and no sex that many teens will still pick no sex on their own? If that's really the "best" choice, do we think so little of our kids that they will not be able to figure that out if both options are laid out before them? Are we so scared of the appeal of sex that it can trump all other sensible decisions? Sure their hormones are out of control -- and that's where parental supervision needs to come into play. And for the teens who don't have parents that will watch over them and guide them to the extent they need -- for them I hope that contraceptive education can help protect them from the unsupervised decisions they make as hormonal teens and will help end a nasty cycle.
Give our teens all the tools they need to make a decision -- don't force the decision upon them by not teaching the other side. Isn't that what God does for us? Aren't we just a bunch of teens fumbling around in God's eyes? Making dumb choices and learning from them each day? Yet God still gives us the choice and all the tools we need to make that choice. Let us follow that example.
Bob,
Honestly, "fornication" was incorrectly translated in the Bible to mean "sex outside of marriage" when it really means "any illicit sexual activity". Sex between two unmarried persons is not listed as a prohibited sexual activity in Leviticus, therefore it cannot be "fornication". And the passage in Deuteronomy about how a man is required to stone his non-virgin bride to death on her father's doorstep-that is about the father being deceitful and selling the groom a faulty (i.e. non-virgin) bride, not about the immorality of premarital sex. See this link: http://elroy.com/ehr/fighttheright.html#sex
And also, should we really be looking toward such passages for moral guidance? I can't think of a single Southern Baptist or Orthodox Jew who would advocate that a woman who has sex before marriage be stoned to death on her father's doorstep.
Phoenix hits on an interesting point that also bothered me about this blog. It tries to lump pre-marital sex and teen sex in the same category. And they are simply not the same thing at all. A woman with a solid career and independence who gets pregnant out of wedlock but is able to support her child is an entirely different thing than a 16-year-old who gets pregnant by her high school boyfriend.
Perhaps on a moral level they are the same to you ... but there clearly are more complex social issues going on when discussing teen pregnancy that need to be addressed regardless of what the Bible says or doesn't say on pre-marital sex.
Dana, you bring up an important point. There is a big difference in teen sex and pre-marital sex. I agree.
A woman with a solid career and independence who gets pregnant out of wedlock but is able to support her child is an entirely different thing than a 16-year-old who gets pregnant by her high school boyfriend.
==================================
johnson789
South Dakota Alcohol Addiction Treatment
South Dakota Alcohol Addiction Treatment
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.