[1]McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–I once viewed the description “pro-choice” as disingenuous. I don’t anymore.
Those who support abortion on demand do support choice. They want individuals to be able to choose to pursue any sexual behavior without restrictions or consequences -– especially the consequence of “unintended pregnancy.”
In the liberal worldview, sex is a civil right not to be infringed upon.
How else can you explain the liberal aversion to sex education programs that feature abstinence as the only absolute way to avoid pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases?
According to The Washington Times, the ACLU Sept. 21 launched a campaign to persuade education officials in 18 states to reject federal government-affiliated abstinence-only sex education programs.
The ACLU complains the programs are too religious in nature, give out inaccurate information and discriminate against homosexuals. However, the real motivation for the ACLU’s crusade is “sex as a civil right.”
[2]Teens should have the right to fornicate whenever they want and in whatever manner they choose. To dissuade them would be infringing on their civil right to sex.
“Sex as a civil right” has as its foundation Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that struck down the abortion restrictions in America.
The Roe decision grew out of the social upheaval of the 1960s that was characterized by a youth movement insistent upon experimenting with sex and drugs. The 60s generation soon discovered that free love had a price. Irresponsible promiscuous sex often resulted in “unintended” pregnancies.
While the seeds for Roe were planted in two earlier Supreme Court decisions (Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972), both having to do with the right to obtain contraceptives, the 1973 decision was the consummation of the “sex with no consequences movement.”
In the past three decades the “choice” movement has grown beyond “sex as a civil right” for heterosexuals. It now includes homosexuals, bisexuals and those who seek even more bizarre forms of sexual expression.
The “sex as a civil right” issue is no better illustrated than with the approach that is taken in combating the disease known as AIDS.
If AIDS were not primarily spread by sexual contact, it would be dealt with more aggressively. Instead of calling for abstinence among those most at risk, the medical community urges “safe sex,” which is the watchword for condom use.
When it comes to AIDS, safe sex is an illusion.
According to a summary report issued in 2000 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services, “consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85 percent.”
Some will argue that encouraging a practice that is 85 percent effective is responsible. However, in the game of Russian roulette there is always an 83.4 percent chance of firing an empty chamber. Even though the odds of getting a bullet are relatively low, participation is not promoted because the stakes are simply too high.
The only explanation for refusing to urge abstinence among homosexuals infected with HIV/AIDS is that sex is viewed as a civil right. As a result, no restrictions are tolerated.
If you think that the “sex as a civil right” movement has reached its zenith by advocating for homosexual, bisexual and transgender behaviors, you are sadly mistaken.
Already in the academic community there are those who are seeking to legitimize pedophilia and bestiality.
In 2002, The University of Minnesota Press published “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.” Author Judith Levine wrote that the Dutch age-of-consent law is a “good model” — Dutch law permits consensual sex between an adult and a child beginning at age 12.
“Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons,” Levine wrote. “An older person makes them feel sexy and grown-up, protected and special.”
It should be noted that Levine acknowledged having had a sexual relationship with an adult when she was a minor.
Peter Singer, professor at Princeton University, has long been a defender of bestiality. He views human-animal sex as a taboo that should crumble. Singer’s only concern in bestiality is that the animals involved should never be harmed.
God gave sex as a glorious gift to be enjoyed by a man and a woman within the commitment of marriage. To make it a crass choice or an unrestricted civil right is to distort and cheapen it.
When sex becomes a civil right, marriage and the family -– the building blocks of society -– are undermined. No civilization has ever survived the dissolution of the family. But to liberals, sexual choice trumps societal survival.
–30–
Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore. His column appears each Friday in Baptist Press.