Anti-Climacus

LINK: I cite the following (link from Dara) to make a number of points. Most of the arguments presented in the article are ludicrous--not on the basis of whatever one thinks of them on an up-or-down basis, but for the fundamental disrespect they show for an alternative conception of how human beings function. Thus we get:

" I respect those who have strong religious convictions concerning their sexual practices and attach to their virginity a high value."

but we also get:

"We must, however, keep in mind that the placement of this high value is a personal decision and not a universal fact. It is certainly not the government’s decision to make for anyone."

why is this a problem? Because the sort of viewpoint that values abstinence programs takes as axiomatic the idea that people have a certain sort of behavior which it is not in their rationally considered best interest to engage in. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, the thoroughgoing (or perhaps we should say 'consistent:' either is applicable) abstinance advocate cannot accept any sort of policy that caves into the notion that people's conduct matters not at all, it being strictly a function of their own lives. Family planning advocates are, to trot out a number of adjectives, by and large secularist and materialist, and embrace a certain set of beliefs relating to libertarianism and utilitarianism. They accept, in this case, as fact that people are just horny little bunnies who will go off and do their thing regardless of what the government or anyone else says about it, and so public policy should be designed with this set of realities in mind. This approach is, of necessity, fundamentally hostile to people who support abstinence education, because a necessary prerequisite of their beliefs is that people's behavior should not be quietly acquiesced to. Thus:

"Ah, abstinence. It’s the Bush Administration’s baby (no pun intended), and they’ve been nourishing it with the umbilical cord of federal funds (okay, maybe that one was intended) ever since the conception (someone please make me stop) of his presidency. Evildoers engaged in premarital intercourse, beware!"

(Side note: is there anything factually incorrect in the following?: "the abstinence programs attempt to cut down on teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by stating that the only sure way of prevention is completely abstaining from sex until marriage.")

But, Nick, you are no doubt saying, you're surely not advocating abstinence education considering all the nasty stuff that's going on in the world, right? Don't you A fortiori condemn millions of people across the world to horrible suffering? Well, mostly I just wanted to establish that the family planning side is more hostile to abstinence education than in claims to be. But point well taken. What the discussion here neglects is the possibility that there is something between making something illegal and making it legal. On to another paragraph to elaborate.

I believe there is a certain sort of activity that might best be called publicly censurable behavior: that is, there exist activities that we as a society are prepared to admit happen de facto, and accept insofar as they go, but we believe that a de jure sanction of the behavior would have all sorts of untoward consequences. To wit: underage drinking. Does anyone think it doesn't happen, or that society at large is not okay with a certain amount of it going on? But most rational observers can agree that mostly bad things would result if we changed liquor laws to reflect where our cultural attitudes are. We want the penalties to be there for exceptional cases, but we don't want to exercise them otherwise. Dara and I discussed another example this weekend which might be parallel, though I'm as yet unsure about that.

How does this relate to abortion? We want to have options available (the family planning route), and insomuch as the Bush administration has prevented these, so much to the worse, but I think there are serious consequences advocates have not contemplated to institutionally distancing ourselves from the idea of abstinence.