Isn’t the Solution for Planned Parenthood Very Simple?

The Sexual Revolution & AbortionThey could stop doing abortions.

Since the most recent video scandal, defenders of Planned Parenthood have been retorting that abortion only accounts for a very small percentage of the services that Planned Parenthood provides. As if abortion is an insignificant part of what Planned Parenthood does.
Okay, then. If abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, then why not stop doing them altogether? Why not just stick with actual women’s reproductive health services?

But this will never happen. Why? Why is providing abortions a deal-breaker for Planned Parenthood? Why will Planned Parenthood risk losing over $500 million in taxpayer funding rather than stop doing abortions?

They will not stop because their reasons are ideological.

Gender feminism and the Postgender movement will not accept an ethic that compels a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The key word is unwanted. Apparently, “Progressive” ethics is ultimately about autonomy, self-determination, and “equality,” even if this means demanding a woman’s right to kill her offspring in utero; and it does. These people believe that women cannot be on equal footing with men so long as women are bound by a biologically assigned role that men are not bound by.

The connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy must be severed, or else women can’t possibly share an “equal status” with men. This is essential to the sexual revolution. It doesn’t matter if a woman freely chooses to have sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. Her male partner doesn’t have to worry about living with an unwanted pregnancy, so neither should she. It wouldn’t be fair. For radical feminism, legal abortion is basic to ensuring equality with men.

Therefore, those of us who oppose abortion on demand are said to be waging a “war on women.” But we’re not. We’re waging a war on an inhumane utopian fantasy. We accept the natural order of creation and recognize the value, equality, and sanctity of every human life regardless of differing gender roles.

Going backwards?
But maybe gender feminists have a point. Why not use abortion to level the gender playing field?

Because by definition, abortion undermines any meaningful notion of equality. It abuses power, destroying vulnerable individuals in order to advance the status of more powerful individuals. It saws off the limb on which it is sitting.

The only way that abortion can work as an equalizing force is to pretend that a human fetus is not a human being. But it is simply a biological fact that a new human life begins at conception. If we’re going to hold that human life has innate value, then there is no rational way to argue that a human fetus has no value.

If we do not value innocent human life from its beginning point, then we are left with arbitrarily qualifying some other point at which a life is human and has value. Any such arbitrary point opens the door to creepy ethical scenarios. For instance, if we pick viability, does that mean that the dependent elderly and disabled are not fully human? Is it then ethical to terminate them at will and sell their organs for research?

But what about cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?

These objections cannot be brushed off lightly. In cases involving rape and incest, the girl/woman has had a pregnancy forced on her. It is wildly unjust that anyone should ever be forced into such a situation. At the same time it is unjust that an innocent human life should be ended because it originated through the selfish actions of a male perpetrator. There is no perfect answer. Such is the world in which we live.

A Pro-life position does not advocate no abortion whatsoever. Pro-lifers who say so are misinformed, in my opinion. The life-of-the-mother argument is held up by the Left as an example of so-called Pro-life extremism – an example of why Roe v Wade is necessary. But the truth is that abortion was allowed in cases where the life of the mother was endangered before Roe v Wade. Such decisions have always been made by the mother and her family.

How can the decision to terminate such a pregnancy be considered a Pro-life decision? It is Pro-life because the life of the mother is at stake. What is being weighed in such a case is the fundamental right to life of two separate individuals; the life of the mother vs. the life of the child. But in the vast majority of abortion scenarios, what is being weighed is a woman’s “right to choose” vs. the right to life of a child. The right to life is simply more fundamental – the right upon which all other rights rest. If we fail to uphold innocent human life, certainly secondary rights are expendable as well.

As a compromise, even as an ardent Pro-life person I would support a law or amendment making an exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, even though I would not necessarily agree that abortion is justifiable in those situations. Factual numbers around these scenarios are elusive, but in combination these constitute probably well under 5% of abortions, so such a law would still do away with so-called abortions of convenience. Abortion for non-medical reasons is not health care.

Planned Parenthood’s better world

Damning investigative videos about Planned Parenthood are not new. They’ve been trickling out for years now. Several years ago, when Planned Parenthood workers from several different states were secretly recorded, assuring white donors that their donations could indeed be designated to specifically abort black babies, what I heard angered me.

Later, a Live Action hidden camera filmed a 13-year old girl seeking an abortion at an Indiana Planned Parenthood facility. Rather than report the situation to Child Protection Services, as the law requires, the nurse instructed the girl to lie about the age of her 31-year old partner in order to circumvent the law, and then directed the girl to a neighboring state for a secret abortion. Very disturbing.

Then, when a Planned Parenthood worker was caught on hidden camera coaching a sex-trafficking pimp on how to circumvent the law in order to obtain abortions for his underage, non-English-speaking “workers,” I was angry. However, Planned Parenthood could throw these employees under the bus because they weren’t in high-level positions.

But the latest string of videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, implicates several Planned Parenthood representatives at the highest levels of the organization.

Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the abortion issue has divided the American public. We didn’t need videos to know that taking an innocent human life for money is a bad thing. But even now, even in light of the latest revelations, I haven’t heard the Right demanding that Planned Parenthood and their radical sexual politics be driven out of existence. But is it so unreasonable to ask that taxpayer dollars not be used to subsidize them?

If “Progressives” must have abortion-on-demand in order for their vision of equality to work, let them do it without the forcing the humane sector to fund it. If there is going to be an abortion industry, let it stand on its own, like other service industries. Let the industry find it’s own sympathetic benefactors. Let us see if a business that terminates infant human lives for money will somehow have the effect of fostering human flourishing, equality, and a culture of enlightenment.

It fascinates me that while we continue to advance scientifically and technologically as a society, we remain morally and ethically lost. The same science and technology that is used by some to ease human suffering and make the world a better place is used by others for oppression and for harm. Human action continues to be darkened by greed, willful ignorance, and arrogance on a worldwide scale. The research lab cannot tell us right from wrong, or even if such a thing as right and wrong exists.

Planned Parenthood is one modern example of misapplied science and technology in the service of a well-meaning, but tragically mistaken, ideology. However, there is plenty of misapplied science to go around on both sides of the political spectrum. When all is said and done, how we perceive our problems and solutions still comes down to our beliefs. Our beliefs dictate our behavior.

Here’s hoping we can still respectfully talk to those whose beliefs differ from our own about things that matter to us all. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Baby doctor

Found on the sidewalk outside the micro brew pub near my house…

Are you looking for great storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview in the kids you love? Visit my online store HERE!

Advertisements

Um, No: Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn Jenner, & the Pregnant Man

Caitlyn Jenner-Vanity Fair

‘Not in Kansas anymore…

The timing of the Rachel Dolezal controversy is unbelievable. It broke just days after Bruce Jenner instructed the world to call him Caitlyn, and announced that he is the new normal.

See? There is a God.

Both Rachel and Bruce claim a mental identity that does not conform to their physical bodies. From the trans perspective, one’s mental identity apparently trumps everything else. But then why isn’t anyone calling Rachel brave and courageous? Why isn’t everyone congratulating Rachel for living out her true self? Why is everyone disrespecting Rachel by continuing to refer to her as white? Why isn’t Rachel the new new normal?

Why does the person who has enjoyed the benefits of being a white male for his entire life now get to enjoy renewed celebrity status as a “woman,” while the white woman who has lived her life and served as a black woman gets publicly shamed and put in her place? After all, Rachel’s claim is far less extreme than Bruce’s.

Just to be clear, I remain unconvinced that Bruce is a woman, or that Rachel is black. I’m just trying to follow the “progressive” logic.

As it turns out, this is not possible.

Yahoo News quoted Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., on “transracialism” :

Applying this concept to race makes little sense to me. ‘Trans’ refers to a lack of fit between biology and identity, but there is no biology involved in race.”

Wait…What? I wonder how white slave owners avoided accidentally enslaving other white people?

On CNN Tonight, Montel Williams repeatedly called Dolezal a liar: “It’s a costume…She’s a liar.”

Uh…Apparently Montel didn’t get the trans memo. He’s calling her a liar just because she has a white body. But the way the trans thing works is, if she mentally identifies as black, then she’s black. She gets to say who she is. It’s called self-determination. This is why Jenner can say he’s a woman even though he has XY chromosomes and can pee while standing up.

Here is an indignant Zeba Blay, writing for the Huff Post:

“Transracial identity is a concept that allows white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity, without having to actually engage with every facet of what being black entails — discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and so on. It plays into racial stereotypes, and perpetuates the false idea that it is possible to “feel” a race.”

Ummm…but…You can make each of those same arguments about Bruce Jenner, who up until now has spent his entire life being treated as a privileged white male. Also, look at 65-year-old Bruce on the cover of Vanity Fair and explain how he is not “playing into [sexual] stereotypes.” And why is “feeling” race a false idea, but “feeling” gender is not?

I don’t necessarily disagree with Zeba’s conclusions, but if she wants to support the LBGTQ agenda, she’s going to have to trash Dolezal with arguments that don’t also trash transgender people. If Dolezal claims to “identify as black,” Zeba can’t say she’s pretending, or lying, or mentally ill, at least not if Zeba wants to be a good liberal.

The issue here is that some people internally identify in ways that do not correspond with their physical bodies. I can tolerate that. The question is, “Should everyone else have to celebrate, normalize, and go along with this when it occurs?”

In the case of transgenderism, the practical question is “should we turn the culture upside down, overhaul language, and obliterate the nuclear family in order to accommodate trans people?” I think that’s asking an awful lot.

Transplaining
I’m sure by now you’ve heard of mansplaining. That’s the derogatory feminist term for men explaining to women how they should think.

Well, I’d like to coin a new term: transplaining. That’s my derogatory term for transgenders (usually biological men) explaining to women how they should think.

You might object, “but LGBTQ people are a misunderstood and persecuted minority. They deserve a voice, and it’s trans people who should explain their experience to the rest of the population.”

I’m fine with that. But we must also reserve the right for people to respectfully disagree with LGBTQ people about their opinions. Nobody gets to control what other people think.

On one level, this is not even a mysterious issue.

Here’s the deal. Within the human experience there is a fundamental reality called sexual reproduction. It depends upon the complementary male and female halves of humanity coming together. This is undeniable. It is undeniable because it is undeniably the reason we are still here. This must be a starting place for understanding normal human sexual experience over millennia. It is ground zero for a healthy grasp of the basic shape of reality if we’re going to continue to have a field called biology.

It’s true that this does not describe the personal experience of the less than 5 percent of the population who identify as gay, or for the even smaller percentage who identify as gender-variant. However, “not fitting” does not place them outside of the scope of humanity. According to my biblical worldview, they are intrinsically valuable individuals, with a right to express themselves. They deserve the same freedoms and protections as everyone else. But they do not have a right to redefine reality, sexuality, and marriage for the general population, and certainly not for our children. No one does.

They have a right to say, “The gender binary is a completely outdated social construct.”

I have a right to say that statement is ridiculous.

I do not deny that trans people are experiencing gender dysphoria. I certainly don’t think they choose it. I understand that choosing to live as the gender with which they mentally identify is an attempt to bring coherence to their experience. But the general culture stands to lose too much if we deconstruct the gender binary model. Too much depends on it.

This is especially so when the gender binary mainstream isn’t broken. It’s working just fine for the vast majority of people. In a pluralistic culture, the mainstream’s response to transgenderism should not be hate or division, but compassion and human acceptance of the persons involved. At the same time, we are not obligated to buy into the transplaining. This idea that we must either participate in the prevailing LGBTQ political perspective, or else we must hate LGBTQ people, is a false dichotomy. It’s an idea that needs to die a thousand very public deaths.

Un-muddying the water
There is more than one way to look at this stuff. Let’s consider another new and amazing groundbreaking hero who is arguably not all that new or amazing – the world’s first pregnant man.

Thomas Beatie, (born Tracy, a biological female,) while “transitioning to a man,” decided to keep her uterus because she wanted to have children someday. In 2008 “He” appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show while pregnant with “his” first child, and was introduced as the world’s first pregnant man. Beatie has since birthed 2 more babies…

Whoa, mama. Let’s stop the train right there.

I realize it’s politically incorrect to put the word he and him in quotes, because Thomas wants to be referred to as a man. But this is exactly the point. We’re expected to agree that Beatie is a man when it’s at least just as reasonable to say that Beatie is a surgically and chemically altered woman. The fact that she didn’t want to let go of her working uterus kind of gives away the game. (Not that it’s a game.) If there is anything that is distinctly and uniquely female, it is the conceiving, gestating, bearing, and nursing of children. That’s a uniquely female thing! Beatie is not a man with a uterus. She is a woman who “feels like a man,” whatever that means. There is no need to be mean to these people, but neither do we need to go along with this. Underneath it all, there’s nothing new here.

I think the fact that Beatie wanted to keep her uterus is telling. She wanted to live as a man, except that she still wanted to be able to get pregnant. Buuut…that’s…not living as a man. Beatie was quoted as saying, “I see pregnancy as a process, and it doesn’t define who I am. It’s not a male or female desire to want to have a child – it’s a human desire.”

Well…It’s pretty freaking female to desire to give birth to a child. Just sayin’.

By contrast, my understanding is that men “transitioning to women” are generally uninterested in gestating and bearing children. I think we can guess why. And yet this is virtually the only intrinsically female role that is not a cultural construct.

No, instead Bruce tells Dianne Sawyer that he’s looking forward to being able to have nail polish on long enough that it actually chips off. This seems to me a shallow, even insulting, understanding of femaleness.

[Update: In March of 2012 Beatie and “his” wife Nancy began divorce proceedings, which, due to the unprecedented nature of their situation, lasted until August 2014. In November of 2014, Thomas was jailed briefly, pleading “not guilty” to stalking Nancy, after a GPS tracking device was discovered on Nancy’s car by police. Thomas admitted that the device was his and that he had been tracking his wife for over two years, out of concern for his children.]

Why should anyone care about what these people do?
We should care because this is a very big deal, and it will affect everyone on the planet. This is as basic as it gets.

Consciously or not, the “marriage equality” and transgender full court press that we are now seeing is part of a utopian movement called Postgenderism. Apparently, the Left believes it sees an opportunity to impose the next stage of its egalitarian vision onto the world. Accordingly, it now seeks to redefine not only marriage, but gender itself. This is an unimaginably reckless and unprecedented step, not to mention astonishingly arrogant.

What is Postgenderism? Following is an excerpt that requires no comment. Bear in mind that you are not reading a Netflix sci-fi movie summary. (Emphasis mine):

Abstract: Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice… (Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary)

This is simply a logical conclusion of evolutionary humanism. We are seeing in our culture a collision of worldviews. Ultimately this boils down to a question of authority. The secularist LGBTQ agenda sees no authority other than mans’: We’ve arrived by accident in a purposeless universe, and we are free to alter our destinies by whatever means we see fit. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

As the secular world slowly loses its grip on reality, the things that matter most get ignored and then lost. The most vulnerable and least politically powerful people – children – stand to suffer the most.

Transgender Restroom Sign

Sign-up HERE to receive notification of my new storybook releases! Each beautifully illustrated book is designed to help you instill a biblical worldview in the children you love.   – Scott Freeman

 

Putting It All Together: Evangelicals, Gays, Blacks, & GMOs

Boromir meme-one does not simply We need each other in order to reach an understanding of viewpoints that differ from our own. Why should we bother to do this? Because no one person or group is right all of the time, and it is a natural human tendency to tend toward arrogance, self-righteousness, prejudice, and the demonizing of those with whom we disagree.

As a guy who traverses the (mostly) conservative world of Evangelical subculture, and the (mostly) liberal world of the secular arts culture, I often feel like a fish out of water.

I’m pretty sure everyone gets the case for “marriage equality”: fairness, equal treatment, non-discrimination. But based on news and commentary that I see, it strikes me that supporters of “marriage equality” almost universally misunderstand the motives of Evangelicals in the debate. The word schadenfreude has entered the mainstream, as the Left gloats over how fun it is to watch “anti-gay” people “lose” the battle. (Schadenfreude means to feel pleasure at another’s misfortune.) I’m curious as to what “marriage equality” supporters think that Evangelicals have to lose in this debate.

There seems to be an assumption that Evangelicals somehow need to hate, in order for their “religion” to work. Or that Evangelicals hope to forcibly impose their “religious beliefs” on everyone else (as if that has ever worked for anyone.) Or that Evangelicals don’t know any gay people that they personally love.

I certainly can’t speak for all Evangelicals, but I’ve had one foot in theologically conservative Evangelical subculture all of my life, and none of the above points are true for most of us. Of course you can find jerks and buttheads on the Left, Right, and Middle of every group. Finding one, giving him press, and making him the poster boy doesn’t promote understanding.

So what do Evangelicals stand to lose in the gay marriage debate?

Nothing. We’re not in this for ourselves.

We believe we’re standing for a public policy that will be the most beneficial for future generations; one that will guarantee the most freedom for the most people, and that will be safest and healthiest for the most vulnerable members of society, namely dependent children, who have zero political power.

There is nothing in our worldview that somehow needs to keep gays, (or anyone else,) down in order to thrive.

It is mainstream Evangelical belief that, in the new covenant of Jesus, we do not have human enemies. The apostle Paul clearly states that our enemies, our weapons, and the battle itself are spiritual in nature (Eph 6:11-17.)

There are many gay Evangelicals who struggle with same sex attraction, but choose to live according to their biblical beliefs. This is their choice. They are not second-class citizens.

Evangelical marriages will be just fine if gay marriage is recognized by the state. This is true because we have an ethic that doesn’t depend upon public policy. But public policy does affect the culture in general. As the institution of marriage is redefined into oblivion, as the incest taboo falls, as monogamy in marriage ceases to be the ideal, as gender in marriage and parenting comes to be seen as irrelevant, the consequences for society at large will be grim. If traditional marriage goes down, it’s going to cost everybody. Government will increasingly need to step in to preserve order and safety, and there will necessarily be a loss of freedom for everyone.

You may be thinking, “Slow down there, cowboy – we don’t really know what will happen if the government redefines marriage to include gay couples.”

Well, technically you would be correct, since, until recently, this has never been done before in the history of the world. But that’s kind of like saying we don’t really know what will happen if we redefine food. We do know. ‘Take GMOs. Genetically modified organisms look like food. They smell like food. But they don’t do what food was designed to do.

SImilarly, we do know what will happen if marriage is arbitrarily redefined.

Changing marriage isn’t like adding another color of socks to the sock drawer. Marriage and the nuclear family is the universal and fundamental organizing societal unit in virtually every culture in the world. The reason it is universal and fundamental is that heterosexual sex universally results in offspring. Gay sex fundamentally doesn’t. When offspring results, it is in every society’s and every government’s interest that the two parents who produced that offspring take care of it. If they don’t, it often costs everybody else in some way.

We happen to have an example of what happens when heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage ceases to be the ideal standard in contemporary culture. We need only look at black subculture in America. I have some personal familiarity with this example as I raised my family in the racially mixed inner city of Kansas City for a couple of decades. I chose to send my two oldest boys to a charter junior high school that was 3% white. The family problem in black America is a widespread failure to form marriages in the first place, and a high divorce rate when marriages do form. The out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks is now over 70%. Think about that. And that’s with black babies being aborted at five times the rate of white babies.

I was struck by the irony that, while the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments about “marriage equality” in DC, blacks were rioting in Baltimore. What’s the connection? I wonder how many of the young men rioting and looting grew up with a loving father raising them and teaching them how to actually be men? I wonder how many of the looters were married men with children at home? I don’t know the answer, but we do know that generally speaking, it’s not gangs of happily married family-men hanging out on the streets at night and raising hell. It’s generally not women committing most crimes and engaging in destructive behavior. It’s mostly single men.

Single men are every society’s concern because of the way men are wired. Marriage is one, pitifully insufficient tool in society’s toolbox to induce single men to commit to one woman, and to any children they may produce together. This is why the government has an interest in monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual marriage. It makes perfect sense for the state to create strong incentives to increase the likelihood that kids will grow up with their biological mother and father if at all possible. Yet “marriage equality” says biology is irrelevant and biological parents are dispensable.

The problem of racism pales in importance compared to the problem of the disintegration of marriage and the nuclear family within black culture. You can’t have a 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate without deep consequences. Through no fault of their own, these kids will grow up disadvantaged compared to kids raised by a mom and dad who love them and who love each other. Thus the cycle will tend to repeat. Single moms, extended families, and black churches are struggling heroically to hold it together, but it’s an overwhelming problem now. Some have argued that black culture is where it is largely because of well-meaning (usually white) people trying to help. Consequently the state has replaced fathers in many black single-parent families. This is the reason journalist Jason Riley has written a book called, “Please Stop Helping Us – How Liberal Policies Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.”

So what does the plight of black America have to do with gay marriage?

It highlights the importance of heterosexual, lifelong, monogamous marriage for society. It shows that good intentions don’t necessarily produce good results. Crime and poverty are not racial problems, they’re fatherlessness problems.

Critics counter that “marriage equality” will result in more marriage, not less. Isn’t that what we want? How will allowing other groups to join the legal institution of marriage hurt anyone?

During recent oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts nailed it with his statement, “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change what the institution is…”

The disintegration of marriage has been devastating for black America, and thus for the rest of the nation. Similarly, the redefining of marriage at the federal level will change marriage not just for gays, but for the general population as well. If one aspect of traditional marriage can be changed, then so can the other aspects. For example, gay spokesdude, Dan Savage openly argues that gay marriage will help hetero marriage by normalizing the idea of consensual sexual infidelity. He calls this “monogamish” marriage. He feels this will help heterosexual marriage because “monogamy is impossible.” Savage wants to change what marriage is.

There are prominent leftist authors, such as Masha Gessen and Shulamith Firestone, who have openly advocated for the elimination of marriage and the nuclear family for the sake of equality. Whether or not this is the intention of the “marriage equality” movement doesn’t matter. It will certainly be the result. The term “marriage” will eventually be rendered meaningless for society in general, as there is no logic that will limit “equal treatment” to gay couples only.

If this were a religious issue only, I would keep my opinion inside the walls of the church. But the dynamics of marriage and family touch every person on the planet. It’s not the fault of Evangelicals that the welfare of children is inseparably linked to hetero sex and marriage. It remains compassionate, just, and rational to support sexual complementarity in monogamous, lifelong marriage. The legitimate concerns of the “marriage equality” movement can be addressed without redefining an already weak, but indispensable, institution.

Why Bruce Jenner Is Not A Woman

Is transgenderism anti-woman

I’m not making fun of Bruce Jenner. But I’m not celebrating either. I have some questions first.

I admit I have no qualifications to write about this. (I haven’t even had my sex talk yet.) But what are we supposed to do? By the time “the experts” start asking the right questions, the revolution will be long over, and then there will be no putting the gender genie back in the bottle. Since the news media are too busy celebrating to do their jobs, I thought it might be helpful to state some facts, and ask some honest questions about the basic facts of life.

Recently I read this in Yahoo Celebrity News:
“Bruce Jenner has been changing his appearance for months, leading to speculation that the former Olympic athlete is becoming a woman. A source for People magazine claims that’s exactly what’s happening,..”Bruce is transitioning to a woman…” (Erin O’Sullivan)

Actually, no, Bruce is not becoming a woman. For people to say so is an insult to women, and demeaning to the female gender.

Since it’s a full time job to keep up on the constantly changing, politically correct terminology around transgenderism, I’m simply going to attempt to be fair, honest, and as sensitive as I can be, and that’s going to have to be good enough. I ask the reader not to read any hostility into my questions, since I actually am committed to valuing transgender people. I think gender dysphoria is a real thing that people don’t choose, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Why it is anti-woman to perpetuate the idea that a man can become a woman
There is something fundamental at stake here: A grip on the basic shape of reality. I would hope that my readers would be offended if I were to refer to a women as a “cunt.” I hope we would agree that this is demeaning to women because it attempts to reduce a woman down to nothing more than a vagina. But at the end of the day, the transgender community seems to be doing something similar. If a dude thinks that buying himself a vagina through “sex reassignment” surgery is going to complete his transition to womanhood, I think it just shows that he is thinking like a dude.

The male reproductive package is relatively simple compared to that of women. One cannot simply trade in a penis for a vagina and call it a sex-change. It’s not an even trade.

Compared to that of men, the female reproductive package is very complex and all encompassing. A girl’s reproductive system dramatically announces and asserts itself at puberty, and continues to do so cyclically throughout her entire adult life until she reaches menopause as an older woman. Her reproductive system pervades her entire body, inside and out. Whether or not she wants to, she must think about her body on a daily basis. Often it demands her attention. If she becomes pregnant, for months she lives minute by minute with the reality that a living being is growing inside of her body; a body that was designed to bring new life into the world. During the birthing process, her body naturally takes over, bringing her through the transcendent and intense experience of childbirth. After birth, first the colostrum, and then the breast milk produced by her body, is the best possible source of nourishment for her baby, delivering exactly the nutrients, minerals, prebiotics, and antibodies that her baby needs. These biological realities, to a greater or lesser degree, must necessarily shape the psyche of every woman.

There is simply nothing like this for guys.

Does the fact that we can now chemically and surgically alter our bodies mean we can change our sex/gender? No. It’s true that “sex reassignment” surgery can construct an authentic-looking vagina, even retaining tissues that enable many MTF (male to female) transgenders to experience orgasm during sex. But at the end of the day, it’s still a hole. It doesn’t connect to a cervix and uterus. There are no ovaries, no cramps, and no menstrual cycles. No possibility or risk of pregnancy. No (naturally) lactating breasts. A surgically constructed transgender vagina must be regularly dilated every day, for life, so that it doesn’t close up.

But what if a biological male identifies as female? This is a real thing.

I think we have to delicately ask, “How does a dude know what a woman feels like on the inside?” What if his idea of “feeling like a woman” is only a cartoonish caricature of femaleness? How would he or anyone else know the difference? We have to take his word for it, and I’m not willing to do that because people are wrong about stuff all the time. He may not “feel like a man,” but what does that mean?

Someone may ask, “Can’t we all live and let live, and let these people do whatever they want if it makes them happy and they’re not hurting anyone?” Yes. People are free today to do whatever they want, obviously. If only that were enough for them.

Why Gender is not a Social Construct
The hip, liberal viewpoint now is that sex is biological, but gender is not. Gender is supposedly a changeable, fluid continuum, and every point on that continuum should be celebrated. There are supposedly as many genders as there are people. But here is the deal: This is an opinion. It’s one, novel way of looking at human sexuality. There has been no new groundbreaking scientific “discovery” that there are a zillion genders (1). It’s a political perspective. It is every bit as legit to hold the opinion that there are only two genders – male and female – and that anything “in between” is disordered. But sexual liberals don’t like that viewpoint because they think it’s exclusionist and mean. It’s not – it should go without saying that people with disorders should not be shunned or hated.

Can we say that near-sightedness, far-sightedness, color blindness, macular degeneration, people with cataracts, and people born without eyes are all simply experiencing different ways of seeing? Are these simply all different points on a continuum that should be accepted and celebrated? Here is why worldview matters. Those of us who believe in a Creator and an intentionally designed universe would say that our eyes were designed for seeing; that there exists an ideal of perfect vision that is good. Do we therefore hate blind people? Of course not.

This is not obvious to everyone. In an accidental, mindlessly evolved universe, things cannot be objectively good or valuable – they simply exist. There is no ideal because there is no purpose to life. I once actually had a conversation with an evolutionist in which he found himself having to argue that working eyesight was not good. He could only say that he preferred having eyes that see, in our present context, but that blindness might someday be an evolutionary advantage. So for him, his preference for organs that actually function according to design is simply a cultural construct. I am of the opinion that this is wacky thinking, and I’m not sorry.

How can we know that gender is not a cultural construct? Because gender is similarly based in biology. Only women have the biological equipment necessary for gestation and childbirth. That’s not cultural. It’s been true in every culture for all of human history. Childbearing is a uniquely female, gender role assigned by our biology. A woman may or may not choose to embrace that role for whatever reason, but this doesn’t turn that gender role into a cultural construct. She may or may not exhibit stereotypically feminine behavior, but that doesn’t either confirm her gender or throw it into question.

Why should the binary, heterosexual system of human reproduction be the standard for defining human sexuality? Because of the fact that the continued existence of humanity has always depended on it. This means something. It means that binary heterosexuality is a good, healthy, proven, whole, and self-sustaining system. To be self-sustaining is part of what defines good. This is not to say that those who deviate from it should be taken out and shot, but neither should we go redefining marriage, sex and gender to help them feel better about themselves. At least not yet.

There remains much to be learned about gender dysphoria before we start breaking out the party hats and dismantling western civilization. I realize that transgenders – people whose gender identity does not match their natural biological gender – find relief in having a sexual category where they fit in. But what if it’s not a true category? What if this is not a natural phenomenon that we should be normalizing? This is a big question. If the transgender movement is correct, then when babies are born, doctors should stop biasing the way parents think about them by announcing, “It’s a girl!” or “It’s a boy!” Because we won’t really know. Apparently, we still won’t know even if the child wins a gold medal in the Olympic decathlon as an adult man.

One possible cause of gender dysphoria
It is possible that environmental factors may cause or contribute to gender dysphoria. There are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) prevalent in our environment and food now that weren’t there just a few generations ago. If a fetus developing in utero is subjected to such chemicals, which are known to damage or inhibit normal sexual development, could this account for an increasing number of children and adults experiencing gender dysphoria today? We can’t say for sure because more research needs to be done.

But will the research be done in our hyper-politicized environment? Have you ever heard anyone in any media even mention EDCs? I’m guessing that transgender people would prefer to think of themselves as the vanguard of a new, revolutionary, liberated human sexuality rather than as people with birth defects.

Radical Feminism, Transgenderism, and Postgenderism
An alien visiting our planet might assume that a movement called “feminism” would embrace the essential and uniquely feminine role of childbearing. But no, radical feminism sees this biologically defined role as innately oppressive, and the idea of the nuclear family as something from which we must be liberated. Pregnancy is practically seen as a weapon used against women. Therefore, the gender feminist camp of the feminist movement, far from being offended, is heartened by transgenderism, gay marriage, sexual promiscuity, abortion-on-demand, and pretty much anything else that helps to subvert the ideal of lifelong, loving, heterosexually monogamous marriage. It is in the interest of radical feminism to obliterate the connection between sex and reproduction in general, and women and the innate role of childbirth in particular.

Here is a vision of equality by radical feminist author, Shulamith Firestone, from her seminal postgenderist work, The Dialectic of Sex, published in 1970:

“Humanity has begun to transcend nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origins in nature…The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either…the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally…For unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family – the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled – the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated. We shall need a sexual revolution much larger than – inclusive of – a socialist one to truly eradicate all class systems.”

Yes, you read that right. Women cannot be equal with men until their biologically assigned role is overcome through technology, and the nuclear family is abolished. This is at once an admission from the Left that left-wing sexual politics cannot work in the natural world, and also a beaming example of the astonishing arrogance of atheistic humanism.

This explains why we see a curious refusal on the Left to associate sex with procreation, and childbirth with the female gender. This is why we see a campaign to keep gender superficial and interchangeable between sexes. It’s part of a utopian political movement.

So what do we do with each other?
With such fundamentally clashing views competing in our culture, how can we all co-exist? The answer is actually very simple – pluralism and freedom. (Here I use “pluralism” to mean the intentional co-existence of competing ideas.) If you’re reading this and you’re a transgender, or gay, or feminist person, I hope you are happy. I really, really do. I don’t bear you any ill will at all. But if you need me to celebrate your viewpoint in order to be happy, that’s going to be a problem for you. If you intend to use the power of government to force your ideological agenda on me, that’s a serious problem for all of us. We need to all be free to carry out our lives, according to our beliefs, in the free marketplace of ideas. Then we will see how this all shakes out.

I think it would be very helpful if we would all go out and meditate on our COEXIST bumper stickers. Then, if you’re looking for a profound movie, I recommend The Giver.

Relevant links:
1) Why Johns Hopkins Hospital Stopped Doing Sex Change Operations
2) Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent

Sign up to learn about Scott’s extraordinary children’s storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview: http://www.bigpicturepublishing.com

I Don’t Get It. I Solved the Abortion Debate But No Guys Signed Up.

We’re coming up on the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion-on-demand legal in the America. I think we should all be celebrating because I have arrived at a solution that would solve this contentious debate. But instead, NO GUYS have signed up on my Facebook page. None. Except me, but I only liked my own page to get the ball rolling. One like. The ball is just sitting there.

I even came up with a cool logo. Here it is:

The Male Solution to Accidental Pregnancy: VasectomyIt’s a quadruple entendre:

  • It forms a “V” for vasectomy.
  • It cleverly symbolizes scissors, for the snipping of sperm ducts
  • It forms a peace sign; a symbol of the end of the contentious abortion debate in America.
  • Plus, if you use your imagination, it kind of looks like a rabbit. Because, dudes, if you follow my prescription, you will be free to indiscriminately have sex, like rabbits, yet without proverbially “multiplying like rabbits.”

On my Facebook page, right next to the flying pig, it says:
I BET I CAN’T FIND 50 SEXUALLY ACTIVE, SINGLE, HETEROSEXUAL AMERICAN MALES WHO WILL VOLUNTARILY UNDERGO A VASECTOMY TO PROTECT THEIR PARTNERS.

The name of my page is, The Male Solution for Unplanned Pregnancy: Vasectomy

Here’s an except from my “about” page:
For decades I’ve been baffled as to why girls and women must be the ones who bear the brunt of the consequences for irresponsible sex and accidental pregnancies. Or why they put up with it. Women are always the ones who take the pill. Women are always the ones who get pregnant. Women are always the ones who get abortions. Guys, aren’t you tired of feeling like jerks?

The solution is so simple. If you’re a sexually active single male, GET A FREAKING VASECTOMY, or else give me a good reason why you shouldn’t. Be a man. Get sterilized. The world doesn’t need your genes…

(There is also a short FAQ section where I made up my own frequently asked questions.)

After two years my page has only one like.

I don’t get it. This just makes so much sense. Why isn’t a groundswell movement forming? Let’s say you’re a sensitive, caring, 21st century guy. Obviously if you’re going to have sex with someone, you must at least like them a little. You might even tell them you love them. So what’s the deal? Given the fact that birth control so often fails, why would you risk putting a woman at risk for an unwanted pregnancy when you could so easily and permanently do something about it?

I know, I know. The actual guys that I’ve had this discussion with have a problem with the “permanent” part. Because they might want to have kids someday. Well, that just breaks my heart. Exactly how does that thinking go? If I help to create a new human life when I’m not ready to care for it, then it’s okay for my partner to have that developing life terminated. It’s a woman’s choice after all. (And, I might add, what a horrible, no-win choice it is for her.) But if I am ready to care for and raise the child I helped create, then apparently that new human life is then valuable. Maybe even a miracle! Hmmm. Surely you don’t need me to point out that this is magical and asinine thinking.

My dad once told me, “Son, if you’re not ready to raise a child, you’re not ready to have sex.” Wow. Really?

Well, I’ll admit I’m extrapolating a little bit because what he actually told me was, “If you don’t have time to clear the snow off your windshield, you don’t have time to drive.” But it’s the same idea.

The truth about sex.
(I just want to see in print what I’m about to say, even if I do have to write it myself.)
I’m going to make a radical and controversial statement here. Especially for intelligent, educated people, it may necessitate a paradigm shift. I feel like I’m going out on a limb here, because I’m apparently way outside of the mainstream on this. But…(deep breath)…here goes:

Sexual intercourse often leads to pregnancy.

I’m serious. In fact, if you want to make a baby, the way you do it is to have sex! I know – weird! You engage in the same exact behavior to make a baby as you do when you only want recreational sex! And sex is normally supposed to be just recreational, right? Like in romantic comedies. It’s like a human right for all consenting human beings, right? We know this because in movies, if two people fall in love, it would just be bizarre if they didn’t have sex with each other right away. And unwanted pregnancy is never a concern for cool people in movies. And movies and TV shows are practically a handbook for life and a mirror of reality.

Some of my (usually European) acquaintances use the phrase “fall pregnant,” as in, “A friend of mine recently fell pregnant.” As if pregnancy is caused by a virus, or some mysterious unknown cause. You’re walking down the street, minding your own business, and BAM – a nasty case of pregnancy hits you from out of nowhere. It could happen to you.

Speaking of pregnancy as a disease, in conversation I have had otherwise bright, educated, young liberal men and women refer to the developing fetus as a parasite, and a tumor. (Apparently a tumor with eyes, a brain, and it’s own heartbeat.) This is desperate denial.

The truth about Evangelicals and sex
Here is another widely misunderstood truth that I have never seen correctly articulated in liberal media:

Evangelicals really don’t care who you have sex with.

Yes, really. Obviously, if you don’t claim to be a follower of Jesus, why would we expect you to behave like a follower of Jesus? It’s your life. You are free to have sex with whomever you want. We aren’t, and we’re just fine with that. However a problem arises when you want to make us participants in what we consider to be unethical sexual behavior. For instance when a liberal presidential administration wants to force us, as doctors and nurses to participate in elective abortions. Or force us as closely held corporations to pay for certain birth control methods that we might find unethical. Or use our tax dollars to subsidize the nation’s largest abortion seller, Planned Parenthood. Yet somehow in all of this, we’re the ones imposing our morality on others! More magical thinking!

We wouldn’t dream of forcibly imposing our beliefs on the rest of the culture, even if we could, because forcing external compliance only fosters resentment and resistance. We just ask that social liberals extend the same courtesy to us. It’s called pluralism and religious freedom.

The truth about fundamental human rights.
At this point, pro-legal-abortion people will argue, “You social conservatives say you don’t want to impose your morality on people, and yet you would overturn Roe v Wade and use government to force women to have babies. What happened to ‘limited government’?”

Well, limited government is very different from no government, which would be anarchy. Evangelicals tend to really like America’s Constitution and founding documents, and we want a government in line with them, which would by definition be limited. A primary role of good government would be to guarantee fundamental rights for everyone, while also guaranteeing basic freedoms for everyone. Guess what the most basic right of all is – the foundational human right upon which all others depend?

I think we have to agree that it is the right to life. Because dead people don’t have rights.

Evangelicals love the line from the Declaration of Independence about people being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; the first being life. We actually believe this. This means there is a transcendent Source from which our rights are derived. Human governments do not create rights. If one powerful group can dehumanize and render expendable a weaker group of people, then the rights of all people are potentially at risk.

Here’s the deal. Abortion-on-demand does violence to the idea of the sanctity of human life, and it does so with governmental approval. Once we begin qualifying when human life is valuable, we put ourselves in the horrifically arrogant position of deciding who deserves to live. As a civilized society we cannot allow that it’s okay to end a life because it is an inconvenience, or because it’s not sentient, or not self-sufficient, or not useful, or not fully functioning, or for any other subjective reason. We know exactly when a new human life begins, and if we don’t value life from that beginning point, then we have started down a nasty slippery slope, and the next thing we know, we’ll wake up one day to find we’ve been sleeping with Nazis.

So the Evangelical “obsession” with abortion is not about us objecting to the way people have sex, or wanting to control women’s bodies, or being anti-birth control, or whatever other crap the Huffington Post dreams up. It’s actually a healthy obsession with wanting to promote a culture of life, rather than a culture of death. It’s a desire to see a rising tide that lifts all boats.

The truth about biological life
I’ve been closely following this debate for decades and I’ve rarely seen anyone on the Left acknowledge the truth about the fundamental question underlying this debate: “When does a new human life begin?” The fact is, before there was abortion-on-demand in America, everyone knew the answer to this question. Here’s the answer:

A new human life begins at conception.

This is observable. It’s the reason doctors can calculate pregnancy due dates, every day. A sperm cell by itself will never become a human being. An ovum by itself will never become a human being. But put them together and – boom – you have a new biological entity with 46 chromosomes that is a developing human being.

But suddenly, after Roe v Wade, the question of when a new life begins became a mystery!
However, regardless of the wishes of Liberalism, the facts of life have not changed. The reproductive act continues to lead to reproduction, and abortion continues to end a developing human life.

I admit, this sort of thinking does dump cold water on the “sexual revolution,” since the shape of reality is that sex leads to pregnancy. Radical feminism and sympathetic sexual liberals must have abortion on demand in order to fulfill their vision of radical “equality”, and they necessarily need the power of government to help them. And yet, the campaign to deny and reshape biological reality in the name of civil rights turns out to be neither compassionate nor humane, and will continue to undermine a culture of life. It is really not the fault of pro-life people that sexual liberals want to create a reality that doesn’t and can’t exist – that is, sex without consequence.

It’s also not our fault that our worldview actually works in the real world, and that of social liberals doesn’t. The Liberal vision of sexual freedom is parasitic, unsustainable, and hurtful. It works great in movies, but sucks for a lot of people in the real world. The Evangelical worldview of sexual freedom within the confines of marriage is self-sustaining, in accord with the real world, and doesn’t hurt anyone. Ironically, it looks dorky in movies. Go figure.

It’s your choice if you want to be single and sexually active. But if you’re a dude, don’t pretend to respect women unless you’re willing to put your money where your sperm ducts are. A vasectomy costs a few hundred bucks – far less than surgery to sterilize a woman. Start a crowd-funding campaign if you can’t afford it. What are your options? Even if you responsibly use birth control, if it fails, your partner will be no less pregnant than if she had been trying to get pregnant. It happens all of the time. Something like 50% of pregnancies in America are unplanned. Now is the time to be logical. Be a man! I can’t think of a better way for you to celebrate Roe v Wade than to get a vasectomy.

Sexual Revolution

( If you would like to be notified of my new storybook releases, designed to creatively instill a biblical worldview in kids, please sign up HERE! )

Boyhood Visions of the Future

Image

I was born in the year 1960. Have you ever had moments of realization when you look back on your childhood and suddenly see how media was shaping your perception of reality? Kind of like finding out that the “food” you’d been eating as part of your “healthy diet” was actually part of a seductively packaged alien plot to incapacitate you so that the aliens could take over the planet? Lately I’ve noticed this around popular assumptions about the future that I grew up with.

I’m referring to the booming period of optimism and faith in human progress after WW2, when new nuclear-age war technologies began to be applied to the public sector marketplace. When cars began to grow fins, and vacuum cleaners and toasters were mass-produced to look like rockets. When “the future” was upon us – “The Space Age,” promising to give us a better world through chemistry. When little kids like me grew up watching the Jetsons, My Favorite Martian, Lost in Space, and Star Trek on black and white TVs. This era was the context of Pixar’s more recent, Toy Story, the era when little boys began to turn their attention from Cowboys and Indians to “the new frontier” – Outer Space!

There is a song that still cracks me up, summing up many of these early 60’s stereotypes about the future. The song’s bad grammar helps make the point, probably more accurately than songwriter Terry Taylor could’ve guessed it would, that human beings are still the same, despite technological advances:

(It’s the Eighties So Where’s Our) Rocket Packs?

I thought by now I’d walk the moon
And ride a car without no tires
And have a robot run the vacuum
And date a girl made out of wires…

I thought by now we’d live in space
And eat a pill instead of dinner
And wear a gas mask on our face
A president of female gender

Though progress marches on (new day)
Our troubles still grow strong
And my expectancies become my fantasies
You turn my blood to sand, the earth stands still again

My hopes are running low
Things moving much too slow
There’s no space men up above
And we’re still far from love…so very far from love

I thought by now we’d build a dome
Around the world, control the weather
In every house a picture phone;
Communicate a little better…

                          – written by Terry Taylor, 1984, from the album Vox Humana

You have to watch this Youtube video of the song. You must. Asap:
(Click here. Now.)

I thought it might be fun to list a few of the more damaging myopic futuristic assumptions that everyone thought would be so cool. At the time I was completely oblivious to the politics behind them.

Improved/Synthetic/Space-Age Food
Really? Why did anyone think this would be a good idea? Oh, that’s right – because Science has so perfectly grasped how food and the human body works. It is beyond pompous to assume that we can process, refine, chemicalize, and even genetically modify, the food supply and end up with better results than if we eat the stuff that organically grows out of the ground from nutrient-rich soil. (If you can still find any.) Genetically modified corn and soybeans were introduced into the American food supply in 1990s. Since then, food intolerances/allergies to these foods have exploded.  ‘Could be just a coincidence. Nevertheless, some 60 plus countries have now banned GM crops. Not in America though. There’s too much money to be made. But don’t worry. After all, it’s only the nation’s FREAKING FOOD SUPPLY.

Many futuristic assumptions forgot to take into account human greed and arrogance. Apparently this was supposed to evolve away, or something.

Apart from the nutritional benefits of eating actual food, it is worth noting that preparing food together and sharing a meal with family and friends has always been the quintessential communal act of human existence. Maybe we shouldn’t do away with this in the name of convenience.

Living in Outer Space on a Synthetic Planet
This doesn’t sound fun to me. Maybe for a couple of hours. The reason given for living in space was that the earth was going to become too crowded and polluted. I actually had teachers tell me this. But even as a boy the obvious question seemed to be, “But, couldn’t we just not destroy the earth?”

The Gender Thing
Visions of the future often included a more androgynous society, featuring both women and men wearing matching unitards. Apparently this was supposed to directly equate with equality, as if men and women cannot be equally valued so long as gender and gender roles exist. As if difference must necessarily imply inequality. I think they apply this same strategy in North Korea today, except they don’t use unitards, exactly. No one really knows.

As a little kid I remember seeing an artist’s conception in LIFE magazine about the future. The image contained a line drawing of a man and woman, each wearing only identical striped, bell-bottomed pants. They were the same height, both of their heads were shaved, and they had the same skinny build. The only difference was that the woman had boobs, sort of. (One can only guess at why.) I remember the picture made me cry, because I thought this was what the future would inevitably be like, since it was in LIFE magazine.

In remembering 60’s pop culture I have a hard time coming up with any innate difference between the sexes being celebrated in the future. I can’t think of any futuristic men with beards, (unless they were villains.) I don’t recall seeing a pregnant woman in a futuristic show or movie at all, let alone an image of woman breast-feeding a baby. Eyuu! How primitively human would that be! That would just call to mind all sorts of inequalities and unscientific, subjective feelings. It’s taken decades for breast-feeding advocates to overcome the misperception that breast-feeding is somehow innately less “modern” or less “scientific” than bottle-feeding.

The Procreation Thing
And speaking of babies, in songs and movies it was definitely assumed that this messy, emotional, undignified business of childbirth would somehow be cleaned up in the future. We’d pick babies from a test tube. Fetuses would be grown by scientists in a big tank. We’d be able to pick the gender, eye color, and intelligence of our (probably only) child. As if intelligence is a virtue, apart from good character. (Why does everyone assume their genius child is going to use their intelligence to eradicate disease and hunger? Maybe your genius child will use her intelligence to make weapons of mass destruction and eradicate humanity.)

I’ve been in a number of conversations with pro-legal-abortion-on-demand people who have brought up the idea of an artificial uterus. They seriously hope for this development. This would resolve the issue for them, finally making men and women equal. What is this impulse that pushes us to reject what is most innately human and deeply meaningful about ourselves?

The Inconvenience Thing
The idea of the innate worth and sanctity of all human life necessarily seemed to be on shaky ground in futuristic visions. There were never any people with disabilities, or blindness, or incurable diseases, or old age, in the Future. Why? They’re not there because, well, we will have learned how to fix the human machine by then. At least one hopes that’s why they’re not there.

Much of the futuristic vision seemed to be about overcoming inconveniences, like food preparation, childbirth, children, work, infirmity, and human limitations; the very things that have given shape to the lives of everyone who has ever lived on the planet.

The Work Thing
The idea of a person going to work all day at a job involving physical labor was not futuristic. Even walking more than a few steps was oh-so-20th century. A smiling George Jetson carried a briefcase home from work as the moving sidewalk carried him to his front door.

Of course most labor would be performed by cool-looking robots. Transportation would be akin to a trip to the amusement park – everything from personal hovercraft to rocket packs.

Things Missing From the Future:
God, of course. Of course there would be no belief in God in the future because everything would be explained and fixed without Him. And that would make us God. Super convenient! I now assume this was the media industry buying into the “secularization thesis” – the now discredited “Enlightenment” idea that as nations modernize and progress technologically, belief in God will inevitably die out. So surely in the scientific, space-age future, God will have been long gone.

Large Families. Gosh – there’s just something kind of undignified and Stone-Age about large families. And there is that overpopulation thing. It is interesting to note that the nations that are going extinct today, due to a failure to reproduce themselves, (as in Japan and much of Europe,) are also the ones where belief in God has been on the wane for some time.

Not What It Used To Be
In the present day, entertainment media’s conception of the future is very different from that of the 50s and 60s. It is now difficult to find an optimistic view of the future in popular culture. Most movies portray a very seamy, hopeless, barbaric, apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic futuristic vision. Perhaps this is because Science has proved to be an insufficient savior – it has indeed helped us with our technological problems, but not the human problem. The Modernism of the 50s has given way to the Post-modernism of today, which can offer us no transcendent purpose to history.

So what is my point in going back to the 50’s and 60’s portrayal of the Future, besides for the fun of it? I hadn’t noticed until recently how uniform the picture was that was presented to me, even during that innocent era. As pop culture’s vision of the future has grown darker, the picture of the future continues to be quite uniform. The underlying assumptions that guided the optimistic makers of children’s entertainment in the 50s and 60s happen to be remarkably fitting with the same metaphysical and political agenda promoted by the entertainment media today. Secularist values have not really changed – they’ve just lost their luster. People aren’t smiling at the future anymore. It’s the same fascism (for a better world, of course), the same evolutionary materialism, the same confusion about sex, gender, marriage, and family, the same utter lack of any transcendent basis for valuing all of human life, the same repudiation of the most meaningful aspects of what it means to be human.

In the not too distant future, I may or may not produce a children’s book that will set the vision of the future that I grew up with on its head. Set far in the future, in my book these prevailing secularist ideas will be looked upon as backward. Ideas such as food coming from a box, can, tube, or pill will seem funny. The idea that gender is a mere social construct will seem puzzling. What if children grew up with adults pointing out to them that, back when God ceased to exist, human beings ceased to exist as well, becoming merely accidental bundles of chemicals floating through space? What if children grew up convinced of the absolute value of every human being, since all human beings bear the image of a universal Creator who loves them? What if children grew up respecting the unique gender and parenting roles of both men and women? And what if bringing a new life into being were seen as a great privilege, and a valuable responsibility, rather than an inconvenience? I can testify that it would make for a better world.

Image

In Defense of Sex Taboos. Sort of.

Remember the first time you got away with breaking a rule as a kid? Maybe it was your first cigarette, or maybe you stole something, or cheated on a test at school. Do you remember what happened afterward?

Nothing…

No angry voice from heaven. No dark clouds gathering with peals of thunder. No being struck with blindness or leprosy. ‘Just crickets and birds chirping…Hmmm. Remember how this made you wonder if maybe what you had done wasn’t such a big deal after all? If you were like me, your immature mind figured that if an action were truly wrong, then there must follow some unpleasant visible consequence. Instead there were only “artificial” consequences, usually imposed by adult authorities. This gave some of us the distinct impression as children that there was really nothing innately wrong with breaking these rules at all – these were simply things adults didn’t want us to do. They were “merely” social constructs. Therefore, all we needed to worry about was not getting caught. I watched as this became a way of life for many of my adolescent peers – breaking the rules and trying not to get caught.

It would be overly simplistic to say that the rebellious kids who saw the rules as disposable social constructs grew up to land on one side of the political spectrum, while kids who tried to obey their parents grew up to land on the other side. So I won’t say that. It would be only slightly more accurate to say that adults who view moral values as mere social constructs never grew up at all. So I won’t say that either. But I’ll say this: I think I’m seeing that the reasoning of a lot of us as adults is not much different from that of adolescent rebellious kids. I hear a lot of people who are arguing that if something is a social construct, then we’re probably all better off without it. The idea seems to be that discarding these artificialities will bring us closer to our “true” selves. And there seems to be an accompanying naïve assumption that our true selves must be good.

That is a wildly optimistic assumption if one looks at human behavior.

There is definitely a vocal and influential segment of modern culture who feels that, because an action may not have immediate visible, verifiable, negative consequences, then there are no consequences; all moral judgments must be relative, and are therefore, artificial. These well-intentioned people think that gender and monogamous marriage are malleable social constructs; that it makes perfect sense to treat sex as purely recreational; that personhood must be subjectively defined. That anyone who says otherwise is seeking to control women, or impose their morality or religion on others. Those who seek to uphold a societal moral code are judging people, which is now apparently on the same level as putting a kitten in a blender.

Now I’m on the other side. I’m a parent who has raised 5 children. I’ve worked with teens for a lot of years, and have watched a lot of other families raise their kids. I’ve watched a lot of kids (and adults) go off the rails. It’s clear to me now that as a parent, I did in fact know what was best for my children in most cases. I was wiser than they were, I could see farther down the road than they could, and I loved them and had their very best interest at heart when I administered “artificial” consequences. I understand now that the artificial consequences were preferable over the natural ones, because often the natural consequences would’ve come at too high a price, or would’ve taken years to see.

Image

As I was thinking about my own childhood recently, a metaphor came to mind that explains postmodern American culture.

I’m pretty sure that every parent I know instructs their toddlers to stay out of the street. At the same time, everyone knows this is overstated. There is nothing innately dangerous about a street – it’s actually the moving cars on the street that parents are concerned with. But it’s simpler to say, “stay out of the street.” That’s the way taboos work. If you examine them closely you can see that they’re kind of stupid. You can always find an exception to the rule.

In the suburb where I grew up, as we toddlers became adolescents, it became quite common for us to play in the street. This actually became an annoyance to the adults. My friends and I played roller hockey in the street right in front of my house. My brother, sister, and friends sometimes took up a quarter of the block playing 3 Grounders or a Fly. Why did we do this when there was a nice park down the street a block away? Maybe it was partly because we were lazy. But partly, for me at least, it was because I thought it was cool to play in the street, because not playing in the street was for little kids. It felt good to me. The adults could really no longer tell us to stay out of the street because we all knew the point of the rule was really not to stay out of the street, but to not get hit by a car. So we would move over for the cars. Nonetheless, we would actually get frustrated whenever a car would interrupt our games. Ironically, some of us would jokingly shout at the cars and tell them to get on the sidewalk where they belonged.

It’s interesting that I never saw an adult playing in the street with us adolescents. There were probably several reasons for this. For one thing, none of us adolescents were driving yet. So we didn’t yet realize what an annoyance we were. Mostly, as in the political arena, the most important stuff was left unspoken. But periodically an adult would actually spell out for us that streets were designed to be driven on, and that yards and parks and private property were designed to be safe places to play. But the conversation would end with us saying that we were being careful of the traffic.

Here is where we are now as a culture. We now have lots of people playing in the street. There are respected people in academia and in the entertainment industry urging them on, arguing that even the idea of a street is a social construct. Saying this solves nothing, but it makes those who say it sound intellectual, perceptive, and cutting-edge. And technically, what they’re saying is true: cars could drive on the sidewalks and through people’s yards in order to get around the adolescents who want to play wherever the hell they want. One can no doubt find places in the world where this is done. And in a perfect world this could even work quite well. But this gets us to the heart of the matter: we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world that needs artificial boundaries to keep society from descending into chaos.

The intellectual elites apparently feel they are educating people by pointing out that the rule, or even the street, is a social construct, and that they therefore are dispensable; taboos restrict human autonomy. Taboos are bars on a cage. Taboos are designed by those in authority to control people. I now routinely hear that ideas such as gender, monogamous marriage, and virginity, are social constructs. The very act of saying such things is assumed to be enlightening, and a call to action. Everyone! Get out in the street and play!

Here’s an enlightening quote from a cutting-edge dead guy:

“Whenever a taboo is broken, something good happens, something vitalizing. Taboos after all are only hangovers, the product of diseased minds, you might say, of fearsome people who hadn’t the courage to live and who under the guise of morality and religion have imposed these things upon us.”
Henry Miller – frequently banned American writer, 1891-1980

Really? But could a subjective, culturally made-up taboo serve a good purpose, even though it’s not “real”?

I personally don’t get excited about taboos, and I don’t live by them at all. However, I think they serve a real purpose in a very imperfect, heavily populated world. Even though I’m inclined to question everything, I often find that there are good reasons for the things we are told to question. Sex taboos are one of those things. I see them as a lame, last ditch, imperfect societal safety net. They’re like guardrails on a dangerous curve in the road. How many of you rely on the guardrail to keep your car on the road?

Right. Neither do I.

However, if you’re a drunken idiot, or if the road conditions are unsafe, hitting the guardrail is better than sailing over the edge and bursting into flame. Call me a pessimist, but removing all the road signs and guardrails might not lead to freedom and wonderfulness for everybody’s “true self.” Doing so might actually make it impossible for one’s true self to reach its destination. Those things might’ve been there for good reasons.

The neighborhood can handle a few kids playing in the street. This has always been the case. But there is a tipping point. Eventually, if the street becomes too crowded with adolescents, either traffic is going to come to a halt, or people are going to get hurt. If the neighborhood loses a common understanding of what a park, a street, and a car are for, the neighborhood will eventually disintegrate. Regarding our existence today, there could not be more fundamental ideas than gender, marriage, and human personhood. These are the most weight bearing of societal pillars. So many are expressing surprise and delight at how quickly these pillars are being removed! At the inevitability of it all!

Allow me to make a prediction about freedom in America. Please excuse the fact that it’s not very original. (I’ll admit that I looked at history to make this prediction):

American pluralism has given us a maximum amount of freedom with a minimal amount of chaos. Historically, we have ordered ourselves through the unique concept of (largely religiously motivated) self-government, along with the usual societal taboos around these societal pillars. With the redefining of gender, marriage, and personhood, the religious segment of society will lose constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. (This is not really a prediction, since it is currently underway.) As self-government fails over time, and taboos and guardrails are gone, society will descend into chaos. People’s “true selves” will be surprised, but will be helpless to do anything about it. The State will need to step in to forcibly restore order, resulting in a net loss of basic freedoms for everyone. That, my friends, is how dictators get elected – desperate people elect them. (Plus dictators lie and cheat, but that’a another topic.)

Here’s a fascinating paradox, addressed to my socially liberal friends: You guys are taking all the fun out of being counter-cultural. Supposedly, cultural taboos are oppressive. But the truth is you were always free not to comply. The consequence for non-compliance was that you would be labeled a rebel, or a radical, or a freethinker. Big deal. America never had a state church. You were always free to give religion the finger and go your own way in our pluralistic culture, if you had the courage to do so. But now, “progressives” are enforcing their “enlightened” (but-still-subjective, btw) values on everyone else, necessarily becoming the oppressor. You don’t have a compelling basis for self-government. You no longer have societal taboos. You have no transcendent basis for innately valuing all human life. You are now left with the force of government, which we are not free to disregard, to force those of us who disagree to comply with your subjective values. This is going to get interesting.

I want you to know that I forgive you. And I still love you. And I’m not going to comply.

Wishing EVERYONE tolerance and freedom of speech, expression, and religion in the coming year!
(Because we are now down to wishing.)

– Scott Freeman

Top related articles:
– Before We Accept Gay Marriage, Could I Get an Answer?
I Vote That We Stop Forcing People To Do Things
Why I Got Out of Politics