Amid an increasingly sick culture, the case must be made for abstinence andBy The Augusta Chronicle
Let’s see if we got this straight: We’re constantly told by the dominant culture that abstinence before marriage is stupid, impractical and unrealistic. It’s mocked openly, and so are its adherents.
The news and entertainment media, along with the Democrat Party, have been selling promiscuity, self-gratification, selfishness and irresponsibility for decades now. And despite devastating societal indices to the contrary, they want to make out like it’s all consequence-free.
It’s as if your most rash, immoral, devil-may-care older brother were in charge.
In fact, Democrats – fairly successfully – argued in 2012 that there was a “war on women” because birth control and abortion drugs aren’t free enough or, one supposes, are not available at the grocery store checkout stand with the Tic Tacs.
So, in effect, they were angry – even militant – that you taxpayers aren’t doing a better job funding their recreational sex.
They also defend, to the death, abortion on demand – which kills a young life – and attack anyone who questions public funding for, say, Planned Parenthood.
So, you’re not doing a good enough job funding the cleanup for recreational sex, either.
Indeed, when undercover videos seemed to show Planned Parenthood officials amenable to trafficking in aborted baby parts for profit, who got indicted? The video makers.
They rarely talk about what kind of behavior leads up to abortion, or whether it’s smart behavior. On the contrary, it’s often reckless, casual, self-absorbed actions, from which the only perceived escape is snuffing out the life that’s been created.
And if the child is allowed to live, often it’s in less-than-ideal circumstances – ones that often aggravate society’s worst ills: poverty, illiteracy, crime, drug use and more. Look it up. This is not opinion.
But we’re to believe abstinence is the impractical and unrealistic choice? How realistic and practical is it to live heedlessly and expect no consequences?
Besides, shouldn’t folks decide all this for themselves? Particularly young folks?
And yet, national abstinence and marriage advocate Scott Phelps, who appeared at events in the CSRA recently, reports that when he speaks to youths, most report they’ve never even heard the case for abstinence and marriage.
The case is overwhelming, in every way.
Not just morally, though it definitely is that. Phelps doesn’t preach to kids. In fact, he tells them to do what they want.
He just makes a rock-solid case for abstinence, marriage and individual responsibility.
The risk of sexually transmitted disease goes away (and if condoms did that, we’d see STD rates slow as condom use rises, but that’s not been the case). The risk of poverty, particularly for a child, plummets. Risks for crime, drug use, school problems and more are sharply reduced.
In short, being abstinent is being responsible – not just to others, but to oneself.
Liberals may not like that. But they can’t successfully refute it.
Nor can they seem to bring themselves to tell kids that. It takes people like Scott Phelps – and Susan Swanson, executive director of the Augusta Care Pregnancy Center which helps mothers and protects children in crisis pregnancies. Swanson has tried for years to enhance abstinence education in area schools, in part with Phelps’ sophisticated – and non-preachy – curriculum at Abstinence and Marriage Education Resources in the Chicago area.
Again, for many youths it’s the first time they’ve heard this message – and, Phelps says, many of them find it refreshingly honest and helpful.
Moreover, he says, abstinence isn’t enough; it needs to be paired with marriage – otherwise, you’re just putting off the corrosive effects of the larger culture’s “anything goes” game plan.
“If you want to talk about poverty,” Phelps told us recently, “you have to talk about marriage.”
How sick is our culture? A Super Bowl ad humorously depicted a baby in utero reacting to the father’s Doritos chips during a sonogram. The left complained that the ad “humanized” the fetus.
Good heaven. No doubt we need to humanize humanity.
We don’t think trying to do that is stupid at all. In fact, we think it’s pretty cool.
And desperately needed.