Is having sex a right? Or is it healthcare that is a right? Or both?
There is no doubt that the advent of birth control that operates via chemical suppression of natural occurring procreative cycles has significantly altered the outlook on sex because it offered all the carnal pleasures of the act without the consequences – a pregnancy.
Follow me here for a journey into the logic of the liberal mind – careful, be sure to keep your hands and feet inside the car at all times and make sure your seat belt is buckled. Here we go: if healthcare is a right, and birth control is a part of healthcare then birth control must also be a right. Following that logic, if birth control is a right and it is used to prevent the consequences of sex, then sex must also be a right.
If sex free of consequences is a right, how can there be rape – because we certainly can’t go around preventing people from exercising their rights, not can we?
Or is the right to sex only a woman thing?
Don’t think I’m arguing for rape, I’m just extending the “logic”.
In a brilliant take on the subject, Stacy McCain at his blog, The Other McCain, noted that we now have people, many of whom are on the consequence free/abortions are groovy sex train, that have lived their entire lives during this time when an altered form of human biology is considered the “norm”. The fact is that the altered form of human roles is not the norm because until the advent of the “pill” in 1960 and its common usage in the ensuing decades, the act of sex was understood to be a procreative and consequential, not merely an act of responsibility free sensual pleasure. It had a purpose other than recreation.
Fun fact: Who was behind the push for contraceptives? Why it was none other than noted racist and eugenicist, Margaret Sanger who saw birth control as a way to manage the mongrels among society and prevent them from reproducing.
But back to my rant…
“After four decades of rhetoric about “choice,” and two decades of lectures about “safe sex,” younger Americans apparently assume that it is normal for sex to be sterile, and that for sex to produce its natural result (pregnancy) is something weird.
As [Rush] Limbaugh said, people now think of fertility as a “sickness,” a “disease” that requires medical treatment. So deeply ingrained has this view become among some young people that a sex educator in Massachusetts found herself accused of being “unintentionally heteronormative,” which made her realize that her college students had ‘never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction’!”
Perhaps this is why abortion is seen as socially acceptable, it is nothing but a sickness to be cured or treated, not the creation of a person.
So many things have changed since the Constitution was ratified. There are things that exist in our day to day commonplace lives that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago, much less in the time of the founders but what has not changed are the natural laws that our rights are based upon.
If you don’t believe it, just think of it this way – if aliens from Jupiter’s moon Io and the first thing they did was to destroy all forms of contraception, what would happen? Well, we would return to the natural state of reproduction where the consequence of sex could well be a pregnancy.
Take another couple of examples – lets say that the Ioians took away our ability to produce aviation fuel – the planes stop flying. Let’s say that they took away electricity – society would revert to pre-electrification processes and much of what we use electricity to produce would simply disappear and humans would return to an earlier state of development.
But the need for food, clothing an shelter would remain. The need for self-actualization, while taking a back seat to survival, would also remain. We would return, step by step, to a more natural state of existence – not that I am promoting that as an option, I sort of like modernity where I’m not poking a mastodon with a sharpened stick in search of dinner. What I am trying to point out is that like electricity, aviation fuel and birth control are all deviations in the natural state of humanity, alterations in the basic nature of man that are temporary and require some outside support to be maintained.
In the entire history of mankind, natural laws have been held in abeyance for periods of time but they always reassert themselves. Hollywood knows this – every science fiction/environmental disaster flick represents a return to a state of dystopia – a Hobbesian existence that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”
Progressivism is also such an alteration in the natural state of man. Through its roots in postmodernism, it seeks to redefine reality to suit its purposes but it, like these other non-normal states can only be maintained with effort. It is an ideology (approximating a theology these days) that will fade as the energy required to uphold it fades – as will the “rights” that are conjured from the ether and sold to its adherents like a 2% cash back award on your CapitalOne card.
The benefit of rights as determined by, as Jefferson put it, “Nature and Nature’s God” is that they require no energy to exist and can never be destroyed by any earthly force (they may be taken or given away but like matter, they always exist). Natural laws are natural laws because they always apply – like the law of gravity, it doesn’t matter if you believe it or understand it, it still applies.
Our challenge in a modern world is not to figure out how to alter the classical liberal ideals that created America to fit the modern world, as progressives are wont to do, rather it is how to be true to those ideals in a changing world, recognizing that our God given rights are natural laws and therefore immutable and eternal.
Something to think about before we allow a majority to sign on to the “sex is a right”/”Soylent Green is people” bandwagon.