Well, most people would look at you strangely if you said that, but Planned Parenthood thinks you do, and thinks everyone should accept and celebrate whatever sexual perversion you can dream up and practice. They’ve even drafted a 36-page declaration to that effect.
From the introduction:
Marginalized groups such as young people, transgender people, sex workers, men having sex with men, people who are gay, lesbian or bi-sexual, child brides and girl mothers particularly need our compassion.
I’m sure some crusty old men from the Middle East will be glad to hear about this newfound “compassion” for child brides.
In addition to this right to sexual autonomy, Planned Parenthood believes that extends to children as well (somebody call NAMBLA), and that
persons under eighteen (18) are rights holders, and that at different points within the spectrum of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, certain rights and protections will have greater or lesser relevance.
Grownups and others equipped with a moral compass used to recognize that human sexuality is sacred and is a great responsibility–one that children are not ready to bear, and that they should rightly be protected from exploitation. Apparently this primitive believe has now been deemed obsolete by Planned Parenthood. Oh, the declaration does indeed talk about protecting children from exploitation…even as it talks about broadening sexual vistas for children (who’s being naive here: me or Planned Parenthood?).
Their recognized “rights” also include the “Right to health and to the benefits of scientific progress” and the “Right to choose whether or not to marry and to found and plan a family, and to decide whether or not, how and when, to have children.” Knowing how vociferously Planned Parenthood pushes abortion, I’m reasonably sure that these “rights” would mean full access to the “right” for a woman to kill her own child, and to do so with the latest available method modern science has come up with to do so (the morning after pill, etc.).
Another important statement made by this declaration is this:
Sexuality, and pleasure deriving from it, is a central aspect of being human, whether or not a person chooses to reproduce
I’m sure Planned Parenthood sees things differently, but it should be noted that if a person chooses to derive sexual pleasure from intercourse, then one should be prepared to face the responsibility of reproducing, whether one intended to or not. Condoms fail somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% of the time, and even the highly effective oral contraceptive fails sometimes. Common sense dictates that if a person is going to engage in an activity the primary biological function of which is reproductive, then one should be prepared to see that primary biological function actually function. One doesn’t necessarily have to like that outcome, but dissatisfaction does not entitle us to murder the person who causes our dissatisfaction.
The declaration makes reference to various things on which persons cannot be denied these “rights” and they include both sex and sexuality. Since “sex” usually means whether one is male or female, and knowing Planned Parenthood’s agreement with the usual sexual anarchy championed on the Left, I think it is also safe to presume they support homosexual behavior, transgenderism, transsexuality, and a host of other sexual perversions.
The obsession with sex on the Left reminds me of a passage from C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” where he talks about our sex-saturated culture in the West and uses the analogy of traveling to a far-away land where people go to theaters to look at naked T-bone steaks, billboards are covered with images of steaks, etc. One would probably surmise that these people don’t have enough food and are very hungry…yet in our own culture it seems the more sex we are exposed to, the more we want. It’s somewhat like drinking sea water…and getting even more thirsty. But I digress…
Mandated recognition of these sexual deviancies should go over well with the taxpayers who may have to shell out to pay for health benefits for sexual partners of homosexual government employees, men being allowed in the women’s restroom in public areas, and still more undreamt-of fun.
It should also go over well in countries that aren’t as “enlightened” as ours where far, far less sexual perversion is officially tolerated.
Of course, Planned Parenthood’s religion is pretty different than that of many countries. It isn’t like the United States where our society was founded on Judeo-Christian values, which would more or less be true also of Western European countries, or nations in the Middle East which are based on Islam, and so on.
Planned Parenthood’s religion is that of humanism, which is a religion that rejects supernatural claims (like those in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) and instead elevates human reason as an object to be worshipped.
The first Humanist Manifesto assumes our modern level of understanding has rendered traditional religions obsolete. Humanism holds religious beliefs such as “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” It also assumes that our understanding of science makes “unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.” Humanism also rejects the “existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society” and embraces a “socialized and cooperative economic order” which sounds a whole lot like anti-capitalism and a desire for socialism.
When the human intelligence displayed in Humanist Manifesto I (1933) was proved to be way off base and unrealistic, humanists admitted they were overly optimistic and took another shot at it in Humanist Manifesto II (1973).
Humanist Manifesto II acknowledges a number of different brands of humanism, including atheistic, agnostic, and Marxist. It again makes a number of theological assumptions, including: “Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.” Not if they are true. If they are true when one believed they were illusory, then one will be deep in the hurt locker after death. In fact, this recognition helps regulate behavior for the better in this life; the tens of millions dead at the hands of political demagogues in humanist countries are testimony to this truth.
Humanist Manifesto III adds a few bells and whistles to the two previous testaments to human arrogance. One of those is that “Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.” In other words, they are based on practical experience and have no transcendent basis of authority.
So if your particular need indicates your neighbor has something which could be put to use by yourself, and experience tells you that you should be able to bury an ax in your neighbor’s head successfully and take that thing, you can craft a new and highly beneficial “ethical value.”
After all, while HMIII talks about “inherent worth and dignity” of human beings, if ethical values are based on “human need and interest as tested by experience,” then that worth and dignity are just as fluid as the ethical values. Again, there is nothing upon which to base any inherent value of a human being (he is, after all, only an intelligent animal that is the end product of millions of years of random evolutionary events).
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Planned Parenthood would consider any sexual behavior imaginable under the sun to be legitimate and acceptable, or that they would be one of the biggest abortion providers in the world. Under the humanist religion they adhere to, what does it matter if human animals do this or that with their sex organs? Under the same humanist religion, what does it matter if a human animal kills its own young in the womb–after all, morality is based on human need and interest…and if the mother’s need and interest takes a higher priority than the life of that unborn child, so be it. After all, “immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful,” so she shouldn’t bother herself with fretting over disposing of an inconvenient child.
The belief of John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar, that children are not yet a human being even after they are born makes perfect sense. If the child eats too much or consumes too much of other resources, or is simply a bother to the needs and interests of the parents, why shouldn’t they be able to kill it?
If you’re a humanist, maybe none of this is disturbing to you. Perhaps you’re asking, “So what’s the big deal?”
But to the rest of us who realize there are transcendent moral values, that human life is sacred and created in the image of God, and that there is eternal salvation or damnation, this mindset is ghastly.
Just remember what you’re aligning yourself with, the next time you consider any support of Planned Parenthood.