Monday, October 8, 2012

Sex and consequences

“Free contraceptives reduce abortions, unintended pregnancies. Full stop,” Ezra Klein’s article declares. The tacit implication is pro-lifers should support free contraceptives, since it leads to fewer abortions.

Klein can be forgiven for missing the point entirely. The wonky author of the Wonk Blog by definition has no “ideological” core. He lives on facts, studies, and data alone. He is, at best, a libertarian pragmatist, at worst an amoral hedonist.

For pro-lifers, fewer abortions is not an end in and of itself. If it were, you would hear some pro-lifers propose abolishing consensual sex entirely and reproducing via the test tube method. But no pro-lifer wants this.

Why not? Because pro-lifers’ end game is to restore to America’s sexually retrograde culture the sublimity of the sex act. The advent of “inconsequential” sex has replaced responsibility in lovemaking with hedonic pleasure. Divorcing sex from the cycle of procreation removes the natural incentives for men and women to commit to each other as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

Before the Supreme Court invented the right of would-be mothers to murder the unborn, relatively few children were born out of wedlock. Today that number equals half the children born in the United States each year.

As Klein points out, even the most expensive contraceptive doesn’t work all the time. Despite our best efforts to mute our own biology, the business of making babies, albeit fatherless and unwanted, carries on.

No comments:

Post a Comment