Saturday, March 1, 2008

The 3 "R's" - Responsibility, Romance and Rationality

Blog doc 16 Pro-Choice without the Lipstick

Just below the turbulent surface of the “No Choice” bunch, just peeking through the scum of self-righteousness, there is an abundance of their “most horrible nightmares.”

The “Greatest of the Nightmares” is not too far removed from the same bedevilments which visited the authors of Deuteronomy when they were confronted with the migration of their youth to Babylon. It was no secret that things in Babylon were actually a lot more fun compared to life in the sheep camps on the desert. They were appealing. We all know what teenagers like.

In fact, it is most likely the case that the shepherd boys and their girl friends were not as tormented by the sheep idea as by the incredible burden of the paranoia on the parts of the male dominated hierarchy. This prehistoric version of “shall not’s” ran the gamut through a thousand rules -- only a few of the choicest ones survive in the Old Testament. You know, rules about things that were an “abomination” to God, although little information about exactly how these ambitious elders came to know such a thing seems to be included. The juiciest came with automatic death penalties.

In a pre-Midieval sense, these old desert men were living in a Neo-Con paradise, basking in the joy of absolute, even divine, authority, surrounded with submissive wives and terrified teenagers. Maybe that connection drives itself the other way, that is, a mandate for desert rules in modern times. In any event, good psychological health of the day required thoughts of pious suicide if one were to accidentally glimpse his father’s wife’s brother-in-law naked.

These folks knew how desperate and obsessed one of their desert boys could get without the benefit of a girlfriend. For the more ambitious and romantic lads, the sheep were simply not the same. All sex must be managed by the rules of marriage, and there seemed to be a perpetual abundance of such rules rolling out of the tribal chief’s tent, along with other arcane but extremely useful ideas about sin and wickedness to be “bought into” lock, stock and barrel.

Boys from high-end families were habitually laid low, virtue-wise, by brazen temptresses from low end-families. In these cases, it was her fault. In the converse, when a high end girl was cruelly used by a low class boy, it was his fault. In due time, the true value of women was revealed. They were worth next to nothing. After that it was, for a long time, always her fault, and her problem. Were abortions available in secret places to these desert girls? Probably. If not there at home on the desert, they were certainly common in Babylon and the rest of Sumeria.

If such an abortion could be accomplished secretly or in some other socially acceptable manner, it would represent nothing less than an “escape hatch” to the endless appetite for control issuing from the tribal elders. By the way, around this time, children were great for sex because most of them weren’t sick, yet.

Well, Deuteronomy has had more than one fresh coat of paint since these ancient days. It is now back to the general idea that if an unmarried (uncontrolled) girl gets pregnant, it is because an equally uncontrolled boy got her in trouble. At this point, it is the full responsibility of Christian society to “get even.”

If it were a violent insemination, or even one which could be successfully represented as such, there was jail. Within its walls, such a boy could encounter new rules, also inspired by the desert, possibly something similar to what the ancient sheep were thinking. If the boy simply “got her into trouble,” it was assumed that the youthful innocence of the young lady was confounded in some critical moment by his advances. In these cases, there would be no jail, just extortion. Her family, seeing this incredible prehistoric opportunity to enslave the lad for twenty or so years, would insist that the child be born. It would fall to him to pay support, to hire lawyers to extract visitation as he was teased by these ambitious parents -- parents always citing one or another element of proof that he was, in fact, a vile, demonic sex monster unsuited to be in the company of the child, after all, just look what he did to their pure and lovely daughter.

Once his seed is set, the whole economy of his life becomes recompense for his misdeed. He will not prosper, become educated, live happily as is the normal joy of youth. He will have no choice because she will have the full force of the law. Can there be an alternative to this psychotic form of mass destruction of male youth? Perhaps.

So far, it has always been the young mother’s decision to bear the child. Its father has no say at all. If it were otherwise, how could he be properly punished? His unmarried wife will bear the horror of raising the child, while he is footloose and fancy free, possibly even creating repetitions of the same problem. The dog.

A true pro-choice law divides the responsibility of decisions about the future. The best, of course, is the case of coexistence, even family creation. That is surely the idea of a child in its essence. Otherwise, this fetus becomes a torpedo, ready to wreck the life of any man it is aimed toward.

Is it so far afield to think this way? When the conception becomes fact and ambitions toward the formation of a stable family are not in hand, abortion takes a seat at the table. If he calls for an end to the pregnancy, she can refuse. But if she does, the entire child becomes hers, no part remaining with him. The cost of raising the child, home, food, utilities, insurance will be entirely hers as the baby is entirely hers.

Should she want an abortion when he wants the child, she should not be able to refuse him, that is, get an abortion against his wishes. Once he child is born, however, he will accept the full responsibility to be a parent. He must be responsible for the cost of the birth, the provision of adequate care once the child is in his custody and all other necessary support. She would then receive complete freedom as if she were not related to the child in any way.

Is this entirely fair? No. Insisting that a woman bear a child may be a greater demand than his responsibility under the agreement. Nonetheless, at some tender moment in the past, about nine months in the past, all this responsibility was already present, divided, perhaps unequally, according to gender. The voices complain that such an equitable distribution of responsibility would encourage the very worst kind of sexual profligacy. The actual result would be an honest and compelling incentive toward honesty and realism. Perhaps King Solomon was not such an out-of-touch elitist after all.

The mythology of the no-choice movement is presently little more than a statue made of smoke. Can anyone honestly believe that those engaging in sexual acts are somehow inhibited by the possibility of the current awful consequences? Could such a wrenching process ever be substituted for birth control? Can a modern society continue to artificially isolate sexual and reproductive responsibility in such an arbitrary way as it is done now?

The statistics themselves defeat any counter argument based on “desert rules” from the ancient world. On a good day, 20,000 children die of disease, hunger and military violence. On a bad day, the grisly number reaches or exceeds 40,000. Issues of control and judgment make adoption processes advance at a snail’s pace compared to the creation of babies. No solutions are currently on the table. Instead, the social culture continues to be enslaved by the tantrum of modern “tribe leaders,” always pursuing their timeless insistence on control of others, brutally uncaring when considering the misery their insipid demands seem to be able to endlessly inflict on more normal people.

It is an industry perpetually fed by irresponsibility and hopelessness. The children grown under the care of the existing program can hardly be considered successes after watching their biological parents enduring two decades of absolute rancor in place of any possibility of the benefits of a family.

It can continue as it is, or it can finally embrace the needs of the children and the needs of the culture. It is explosive and destructive in its present “theo-neo-state” with a far greater capacity to destroy lives than to contribute to its alleged goals.

Everyone who reads this knows someone mired in this very ugly process. Is there any way to imagine that it is working?

1 comment:

  1. Unfortunately, yes, there is a way to imagine that it's 'working.' It's working to frighten the Fox news viewers who sit home with their doors locked, who believe Obama is the antichrist, a nazi, yadda yadda. Look at the strength now of the religious right. Unfortunately, they vote. It's now the progressives who are backing off, and too many who will not cast a vote this fall, which essentially is giving that vote to the elitists who will strip us from the rights we have fought so hard to retain.