“My
mom was really religious with me when I was young…I wouldn’t have been able to
get birth control if it weren’t for Planned P. I wouldn’t have been able to get
condoms and birth control and all these things I needed as a normal teenager
who was growing up in a Jesus house.” Jennifer Lawrence
The headline of the recent article was: “Jennifer Lawrence defends charity against anti-abortion campaigners”
with this caption underneath the headline, “Actor
tells Glamour magazine she accessed birth control as a teenager via Planned
Parenthood, and describes clinic shooting as ‘an attack on women’.” For a
few days, it made all the news cycles which dealt with celebrity or
entertainment news. Overnight Jennifer Lawrence became the new poster child for
the pro-choice movement, a Joan of Arc riding in to rescue the world from those
evil pro-life oppressors.
If
most thinking individuals, whatever their position on abortion, would take a
few moments to analyze what Jennifer Lawrence said and what those using her
celebrity status are purporting, they’d be appalled. To use the analogy of her
popular film, Hunger Games, her
worldview is much more President Snow and the Capitol than it is Katniss Everdeen.
First,
the Colorado shooting was not an attack on women. It was murder, an attack
on human life. Just a cursory reading of the personality and background of the
shooter, Robert Louis Dear Jr., from his ex-wife and others who knew him, makes
it very apparent that he’s mentally ill. To label what he did an “attack on
women,” is like suggesting the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris were an art
critic dispute which turned violent. It’s the same wearisome hypocritical
propaganda continually paraded out by those who scream bloody murder over the
phrase “radical Islam,” yet are the first to claim any violence directed at or
near a Planned Parenthood facility is without a doubt, another radical right
wing crazy Christian.
Second,
it justifies violating parental rights. In a day when parents can’t
send a couple of Tylenol capsules to school with a child struggling with
headaches, to somehow rationalize a government financed agency giving body
altering medicines to a minor, is inexcusable. A minor can’t have their ears
pierced or get a tattoo without parental consent. Somehow, though, it’s “okay” for
someone to undermine the parents and provide birth control pills. What planet
are they from?
Over the course of my ministry, I’ve seen too many young people who were
neglected or abused by a parent/s. In a few cases, for the protection of the
child, I felt that there should be a TPR (termination of parental rights). Most
don’t realize how difficult it is to obtain a TPR?
Several
years ago I was assisting a young Mom who was being beaten by her ex-boyfriend.
Unfortunately, she and her abuser had a young daughter together. Though this
Mom had to be hospitalized after being savagely beaten, though he was a serial
abuser and drug addict, and went to prison, yet terminating his parental rights
was virtually impossible. But because Jennifer Lawrence’s mother was “too
strict,” Planned Parenthood was allowed to terminate her parental rights in
regards to birth control pills for her daughter. And somehow that makes
sense!?!
Third,
apply this rational to any other area of teen behavior and the media elite
would scream for your head…and rightfully so. The faulty reasoning for
violating a parent’s rights when it comes to birth control pills is: “Teens are
going to have sex anyway. Let’s make sure it’s safe sex.” Yet, if you apply the
same faulty logic to other areas of “normal” teen behavior, you’re risking some
serious jail time.
For example, are teens going to drink? Some parents have reasoned, “They’re
going to drink anyway, so we’ll have the party at our home and provide the
alcohol to make certain no one is injured or killed in drunk driving accident.”
If it’s ever discovered, law enforcement will charge the parents. Are teens
going to smoke? Should we have a state funded agency provide cigarettes? Are
teens going to experiment with drugs? What about porn? Wouldn’t it be better,
if those sexual images were provided by a “responsible” adult rather than a
bunch of adolescent friends? Yet, it’s a criminal offense, as it should be, to
provide porn or alcohol to minors. Schools have onsite school endorsed programs
to discourage alcohol and drug use by minors, yet to discourage sexual
relations is usually considered “religious” and thus, prohibited.
Apply such faulty reasoning to any other area besides our sex organs,
and everyone knows how illegal, absurd and dumb it is. If we want adolescents
to learn self-control and to say “no” in other aspects of life which can cause
them great harm and have long term consequences, then why would we rationalize
it’s appropriate to encourage them to behave like dogs in heat when it comes to
their sex drive? Aren’t we also cracking open the door for sexual abuse or date
rape by failing to teach self-control and abstinence?
Fourth,
with a Welfare system out of control and major behavioral problems among children
from single parent homes, why would we encourage adolescent sexual relations? Study
after study reveals children do much better when they live in a married, two
parent home. Somehow we fail to connect the dots. The rise of teen crime, drug
problems, mental health issues, STDs have coincided with the Conventional
Wisdom of the day – “free love.” But sexual love is not free. There are often emotional
and spiritual baggage, and lifelong intimacy issues for someone who has
multiple sexual partners. Add to that, if a young man fathers a child, he is
responsible to pay 17% of his income to support that child until the child turns
18. For a teenager, it can seem like a life sentence.
Welfare
rolls are overflowing with children where the father is neglecting his
responsibility and the State must step in. Ask any teacher or school
administrator, and they’ll tell you that the children with the most educational
and behavioral issues typically come from either single parent homes or ones where
the couple is co-habiting instead of from a committed marriage. What about the
needs or rights of the child? Doesn’t every child deserve to know Dad and Mom
are committed to each other and to them?
Sanctity of Life is much more than just protecting babies. It’s a
worldview which considers not only conception, but a child’s entire life.
Christians must be the first to return and be committed to a biblical ethic of
morality. We must stop rationalizing, “Everyone is doing it.” We must, as the
Bible exhorts us to do, “Count the cost!” There’s a high cost in condoning anything
other than a biblical view of sexual intimacy and marriage. Our children and culture
are paying a high price for our “rights.” We need to ask: As a Christian, am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
Looking for quality used Christian books and other types of books at prices lower than even Amazon. Check out our family's online used bookstore at resurrectedreads.com or visit our store at the Waterford Unique Antique Market at 209 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, WI -- .
No comments:
Post a Comment