I had about three starts-and-stops on writing this post. What can you really say about a city giving away condoms to 11 year-old children?
It’s horrid? It’s unimaginably bad law writing? It’s a sign of the utter rot of our culture?
See, for a whole lot of us, all of that goes without saying, so why say it? We’ll just look, agape, at the cesspool that produces such policy, and move along because we don’t live in Philly and can’t do anything to stop it anyhow.
Those who support such a policy argue that, well, some kids become sexually active at that tender age, so we gotta make sure they’re being responsible about it.
Never mind that sex at that early age already indicates a glaring, massive lack of responsibility on the part of the children, and even more so on the part of whatever role models and/or authority figures they’ve had in their lives. So the cant about “being responsible” is really trying to put a Band-Aid on an amputated leg.
But speaking of responsibility, where is the sense of responsibility on the part of law makers? Laws are in place to direct behavior and train virtue, not just to set parameters outside of which you get punished. A government policy with fun, cartoonish packaging, tells kids “here’s a balloon for your party.” It says, “sure, go ahead, have sex at eleven.” The packaging itself gives away the farm on this one: sex is about having fun, and nothing more. There is not relationship, no self-gift, no spirit-body connection, nothing singular or amazing about the act at all: it’s just about having fun. (And those pesky unwanted pregnancies. Damn our biology.)
Unintended pregnancy rates and STD infection rates rise in places where condoms are passed out for free (see: Africa). The reason is simple, really. If people are not helped to realize that they can and ought to be in control of their base urges rather than being controlled by them, if people are not supported in remaining a virgin or at least in remaining monogamous, if people are not directly, actively encouraged to wait until marriage* for sex, then there is no societal formation to do those things. Compound that with being given a condom by the government apparatus that supplies your food, security, and housing, and then being given a condom is like being given a lollipop: it loses all significance.
It kind of removes wonder about how a figure like Kermit Gosnell could operate for so long in a city like Philadelphia. If the city is actively encouraging promiscuity in the pre-teen years, at a time when the children certainly cannot afford an abortion or would have to tell their parents (if they have any parents), then where will the children go for abortion but places like Gosnell’s “clinic”? A failure to respect life at the front end doesn’t suggest a real respect for life at any part.
I wonder: will the city pay for the abortions that these eleven, twelve, thirteen year-old girls will either seek or have forced upon them when the condom is misused or breaks? Will the city require the youth to get their parents’ permission or to notify their parents? The city is not requiring parental notification to procure the free condoms, so why the resulting abortion? If the city intends to pay for abortions, then I’m glad there is still a shred of federalism in this country, and I do expect that no money will go from my pocket to bailout Philadelphia as it is aborting itself out of existence.