Tuesday, 20 June 2006

The Removal of Responsibility from Society

Yesterday's North British Person reports yet another act of serious tactlessness towards women:
Pregnancy in teenage girls 'all part of nature's law'
JONATHAN LESSWARE

A LEADING doctor sparked controversy last night after claiming teenage girls who get pregnant ''behind the bike sheds'' are only obeying nature's law and should not be condemned out of hand.

Dr Laurence Shaw, deputy medical director of the Bridge Centre fertility clinic in London, said females had been programmed by two million years of evolution to have babies in their late teens and early twenties, when fertility is at its peak.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (Eshre), he said nature intended women to become mothers when young, and for their fertility to decline while they raised their children.

But last night family groups and politicians in Scotland, which has western Europe's highest rate of teenage pregnancy, condemned his view.
[...]
Speaking to delegates in Prague, Dr Shaw said: ''Before we condemn our teenagers for having sex behind the bike sheds and becoming pregnant, we should remember that this is a natural response by these girls to their rising fertility levels.

''Society may 'tut tut' about them, but their actions are part of an evolutionary process that goes back nearly two million years; while their behaviour may not fit with western society's expectations, it is perhaps useful to consider it in a wider context.''

Shona Robison, the SNP's health spokeswoman, whose constituency in Dundee has rates of teenage pregnancy far exceeding the national average, called the remarks ''flippant''.

''Maybe he should reflect on the effects of teenage pregnancy,'' she said. ''In representing Dundee, I am well aware of the problems teenage pregnancy can cause girls. For many it leads to a life of poverty and a loss of opportunity. I doubt these are the things he would want for his own daughters.''

Teresa Smith, chair of the Scottish Christian People's Alliance, said the comments were ''completely outrageous''.

''Many things are an occurrence within nature but it does not mean they are the right thing to do,'' she said. ''Girls of that age are not mature enough to bring up a baby. If they choose to have an abortion, there are long-term effects.
[...]
The point which is so adroitly danced around and then entirely overlooked, in the article as well as in the following comments, is that our society's obsession with ''equality'' has caused us to assure women that they can have it all and to discourage them from marrying at an early age to a good man, approved of by their parents, who can provide for them and for their children -- and this is the price we must pay for it.

But is it an eternal price? IS there a way back to early motherhood and marriage and a fulfilled life for young girls who want to go that way, or is the damage feminism has done to society already irredeemable?

Recently, there have been made efforts by feminist to re-establish motherhood as something worth bothering, which might faintly amuse me if they only were even remotely funny.

Instead of re-establishing some joy and dignity into motherhood, we get served self-aggrandizing drivel now, like the ''women continue to provide the only safe place for a fertilised egg to grow into a human being'' argument, which implies a role much more complicated and dangerous than that of a man when it comes to procreation. Due to this milkmaid's logic, women risk their own life every time they are giving birth, a risk to which men are not submitted, totally different from the rest of the mammals of the world, of course, or the equally simplistic statement that mothering a child means and endless list of things while the act of fathering would involve, due to that logic, just one.

Of course, those brainless bimbos fail to see that human beings are, or better: are SUPPOSED TO BE, a tad above orang-utans and other animals whose males seek the company of females for mating purposes only.

Reality defies feminist whining. Women live longer than men, men are roughly fivefold more likely than women to commit suicide. Nothing has changed of the male role of protector, be it on an individual or on a larger scale. Men HAVE to go to war, women (sadly) have the choice. Men are much more at risk being murdered by strangers or in a public place and blaming men for that does not make much sense in the light of the fact that 5 year old boys in the USA are twice as likely than girls of that age to be murdered, which is hardly the fault of the children. Men are much more prone to suffering workplace accidents, being at the workplace presumably because they have to support a family.

For girls to marry young and thus to fulfil their biological promise and for a lasting, stable relationship based on something else than a few sweaty moments of rolling in the hay, it would need a large social network of people who share the same values and who are willing and able to bring up their children without submitting to fashionable trends or, to quote G.K. Chesterton, ''from the degrading slavery of being a child of [one's] age.''

Not to speak of the fact that something like "a good man" has become anathema anyway.

Of course it's easier to look the other way when one's daughter is sneaking away for a quickie ''behind the bike sheds'' and one can always abort it if one doesn't want it, can't one?

To quote my dear friend, The Sage from Texas, who has pointed me at that: God has a plan. It was once followed. That was called Christendom.



See my comment on last week's report by the North British Person of another stunning case of insensitivity towards women.

2 comments:

fpb said...

A few significant facts about the professional person who made these remarks seem to have been missed. One, he is no doctor in the Hippocratic sense of the word. As deputy medical director of the Bridge Centre fertility clinic in London, his trade is in "fertility" - making women pregnant for money, and, I would suspect, a nice side-line in removing pregnancies from those who don't want them. At any rate, this is at an infinite distance from anything to do with curing illness and prolonging life, which, to his likes, is a mere commodity for sale. Second: any kind of sexual morality, and especially of conscious control of fertility - except in the mechanical way called birth control - must be anathema to him and his fellow merchants. If women had children early (when they are young and strong enough to care for them) and in a marriage, people like him would see the demand for their services sinking close to zero. I do not find it strange that a newspaper should have given this creature some space: they have to have screamers on the front page somehow, and can't just say "boring day today, peace reigns". But I am astonished that nobody seems to have picked the obvious element of corrupt self-interest in his preaching.

The_Editrix said...

Including myself, yes you are right. Thank you for pointing that out. Restoring traditional morality would put an entire industry out of business.