Skip to content

MTV’s Teen Abortion Sales Pitch: It’s Just “A Ball of Cells”

December 30, 2010

Originally posted at NewsReal

In July of this year, leftist Feminists were openly, and proudly, rooting for an abortion to be portrayed on prime-time television. And in April of this year, leftist Feminists like Jessica Valenti of Feministing were grossly bemoaning the fact that Mtv’s show, 16 and Pregnant, did not portray any teenage girls having abortions. They wanted sixteen year old girls to have abortions. On television.  Way to be pro-woman and For The Children ™, faux feminists! By For The Children, I of course mean totally not at all for the children – unless they can be used and exploited to further an agenda, natch. You see, it’s never actually about women nor children to them; it’s always about an agenda and an ideology that treats motherhood as a yoke around a woman’s neck. Motherhood is so old school and oppressive and stuff! What with those pesky children wanting to be nurtured and loved, while providing a joy that fills one’s heart so full that it cannot be adequately put into words. Well, and wanting to, you know, live. Who do they think they are?

On Tuesday night, they got their wish. Mtv ran a special called “No Easy Decision”, in which Markai, a girl who had previously appeared on 16 and Pregnant, learned that she was pregnant again.

And she terminated the pregnancy baby’s life.

I watched the “special”, even though I didn’t think that I needed to do so in order to point out how wrong such a show is on so many levels. But, unlike Ana Marie Cox, I don’t like to talk about things that I have neither read nor watched, nor do I like to do things half-assedly. And, it turns out, the show was even worse than I suspected it would be. It was infuriating and horrifying, almost beyond words. It was also heartbreaking beyond belief. My heart aches for Markai, and for the other girls (Natalia and Katie) who appeared in the discussion portion of the show.

The pro-abortion rah-rah sisterhood, of course, praised it immediately, which should indicate just how strong the show’s bias was. If you needed any further proof than the fact that the show was aired commercial-free, in partnership with Exhale, a group who says that they wish to raise awareness that abortion “is normal in the reproductive lives of women and girls.” Yes, every woman’s “reproductive life” (love the fancy-pants euphemism) includes the killing of an unborn child. You women who don’t have abortions? Total abnormal freaks! Just look at Sarah Palin, for cripes sake. Wingnuts!

The show was entirely agenda-driven and these young girls were sickly used and exploited for that purpose only. The token nod to a pro-life position was a quick question in the discussion panel: “Did you consider adoption?” One of the girls said that wouldn’t have been an option because it wasn’t the baby part that was scary; it was that pregnancy is icky. She had an abortion to avoid pregnancy symptoms. She also spoke of the sacrifices (her word) that she had to make to pay the $750.00 abortion fee. Her prom ticket, for one. [note: Should read “Another girl, Natalia, spoke of the sacrifices….”  Thanks for the correction, Katie and Natalia!]

Sacrifice was a running theme, except it appears that the word has lost any real meaning. The girls spoke of not wanting to sacrifice their college plans. Or of not wanting their partners to sacrifice by having to work two jobs to support another child. And  Markai spoke of not wanting her living infant child to “sacrifice for my mistake.” Such rationales were among the most heartbreaking because it’s what we’ve been teaching our youth with society’s insidious entitlement mentality. There is no right to life, but there is a right to college and a right to not be poor. We can’t put a child through going without food or losing electricity for a few days; losing one’s LIFE is far preferable.

It’s also another example of how leftist feminists actually think very little of women and how pervasive their disturbing mindset has become. To them, a woman is incapable of having it all. A pregnant woman or a mother is incapacitated to the point where she can’t even read a book or attend classes, apparently. They’ve turned college into a need; one can’t meet their twisted ideas of equality without it. They’ve placed a higher value on an increasingly meaningless piece of paper than on life itself and are trying to teach our daughters the same. Plus, why is college a make or break situation? Is a woman somehow lesser if she doesn’t get a college degree? They must think I’m a third class citizen!

The incredibly harmful lies propagated during “No Easy Decision” were matched only by the awful truths about the pro-abortion agenda that the show unintentionally unmasked. Pro-abortionist Lynn Harris, at Salon, exposed one such awful truth and, worse, actually praised it:

Here’s Dr. Drew opening the show — and racking up stunned “FTW!”s (For The Win!) on Twitter right out of the gate: “About 750,000 girls in the U.S. get pregnant every year. And although nearly a third of these teen pregnancies result in abortion, we’ve never shown this choice on ’16 and Pregnant’ up until now. It can be a polarizing topic, and there’s quite frankly no way to talk about this and please everyone. Although controversial to some, abortion is one of the three viable options, and it’s among the safest, most common medical procedures in the U.S., so we thought it was important for us to discuss.”

Among the most common “medical procedures” in the United States. So much for that safe, legal and rare thing, huh? That lie has been completely exposed already and there are over 50 million dead fetuses that attest to that fact.  They don’t want it to be rare; they want it to be the default option as No Easy Decision, and the glee-ridden leftist feminist response to it, clearly shows. In fact, they want it to be “normal” and common. And will outright lie in order to accomplish this. Markai was told by the abortion clinic counselor as she was being prepped for the abortion, “do not think of ‘it’ as ten fingers and ten toes or anything like that or you will get too depressed. Think of ‘it’ as what ‘it’ is: a ball of cells.” I suppose that’s why children are not even allowed in the waiting room of the clinic; don’t want any of those pesky balls of cells running around confusing people.

A ball of cells. Also,wait a minute? Why would one ever risk feeling depressed? According to pro-abortionists, it’s no big whoop and there is nothing sad about it. It’s a relief, you see! Dr. Drew himself told the girls that they may be confused and stuff, but no big whoop. In two years most women realize it was the right decision. There’s a time frame and everything! In two years, all will be hunky-dory. That didn’t appear to be the case with the girls on the show, particularly Markai. Her confusion, and her pain, were palpable. Her boyfriend, the father of her living child as well, took her out to dinner after the abortion and referred to the unborn baby that was aborted as “a thing.” Markai became extremely upset and said “that thing could have turned out to be her” and pointed to their living infant child. I guess the lie about the “ball of cells” didn’t work for her. I don’t think it ever will; I ache for Markai.

Much was also made about how terrible it is that sometimes an abortion is made slightly more difficult to obtain. During the panel discussion, Natalia complained about how hard it is to have to “beg a judge for permission to make your own decision”, due to parental consent laws. She did receive a judicial bypass. The reason? She didn’t want to tell her parents and disappoint them. How on earth does that constitute a reason for a judicial bypass of parental consent? How does it supersede parental rights? That judge should be thrown off the bench. Worse, Natalia went without the love and support of her family in a time when she needed it most. Where is the compassion there? Where is the “informed” choice? Salon jumped right on the parental consent laws, calling them cruel. They also went onto say this:

(In an extended interview available online, Natalia also describes the cruelty of being legally forced to view the pre-procedure ultrasound.)

Cruelty? If actual informed choice, instead of lip service informed choice, is cruel. See, that whole ball of cells lie won’t work if a woman sees the actual baby. Of course, to Lynn Harris at Salon and pro-abortionists like her, that is cruel, yet there’s nothing cruel about making life expendable nor about disposing of a life before he or she even had a chance at A life. That matters naught to leftists. The only people who think the fear of being grounded by their parents is more important than a life itself are people who remain immature and child-like their entire lives. To wit, leftists. They never grew up, they never stopped rebelling against their parents. And they are attempting to teach the same to each subsequent generation. Don’t tell your parents! A super awesome nanny state judge will let you do whatever you want, decency be damned. It’s funny how much they dislike mommies and daddies, but they love them some Nannies.

They also love to give lip service without actually doing anything. Exhale set up a site called 16 and Loved. It was set-up to allegedly shield the girls from those wingnutty people who, you know, don’t rejoice over abortion. How cuckoo pants! Meanwhile, the whole 16 and loved website is all about praising the girls for “outing” their abortions. Because, empowerment.

What the girls really need is actual support.  They’ve been lied to and now, on top of that, they’ve been used and exploited, even if with their consent, to push an agenda. I don’t wish to do them further harm. My heart breaks for them. When they realize what they have done, and they will, the pain of their regret, remorse and guilt will be compounded by the knowledge that they did this all publicly and on display. This is the mentality the girls have been taught. In a way, they are actually victims themselves and now that they’ve served their purpose to the left, they’ll just be tossed aside.

You see, it’s pro-life people who don’t judge and who provide meaningful support. It’s pro-life people who acknowledge the pain and harm abortion also causes to women and who seek ways to embrace them and help them. Pro-abortionists deny their very existence. They deny, always, the trauma that abortion may also cause to the woman. They deny the life-long guilt and pain those women bear. They deny the very fact that a life was sucked from his or her mother’s womb, mercilessly. Never once feeling a loving touch. Never once gazing into his mother’s eyes. Never once raising a tiny hand to touch his mommy’s cheek with a love that cannot even truly be expressed.

That’s your legacy, Gloria Steinem, and that of your fellow travelers. A legacy that is a stain on the heart and soul of our country. A legacy that we must not let continue onto yet another generation. You do not “empower” girls by telling them the life they create can be tossed aside for college. You do not empower girls by telling them a sacrifice is giving up a prom ticket to pay for the aborting of the life they created. You do not empower girls by turning motherhood into a burden to be avoided at all costs; even at the cost of that life itself. You do not empower girls by exploiting them to further your agendas.

Abortion will not, and should not, ever be “normal.” Because, Motherhood is normal to humans and so is nurturing. Rejoicing in the miracle of giving life yourself and then nurturing that life once given. That is within us; it’s instinct and female human nature. It is something of which to be proud and it should be honored, not diminished. It is an attribute and a gift, not a punishment.

If Markai, Natalia and Katie realize this one day, I fear that their pain and guilt will be nearly unbearable. Not only were lives lost, but other lives were potentially traumatized forever. Somehow, I don’t think MTv, nor 16 and Loved will be there for them then. And that’s yet another horrifying aspect of No Easy Decision.

——————————

Follow Lori on Twitter and read more of her stuff at Newsreal, Redstate, Big Journalism and Human Events

20 Comments leave one →
  1. December 31, 2010 2:19 am

    As one of the women on the show, I must say that not only did you clearly not pay attention to what was actually said on the show (Natalia and I are not the same person, by the way), but that I would very much like it if you would retract your declaration of pity.

    MTV did a wonderful job of allowing us to dictate the direction of the show, and allowed us opportunities to discontinue our involvement at any moment. They merely provided us with an opportunity to express our experiences and feelings about our reproductive choices. We were also given access to numerous counseling and therapy resources, though I will report that I found myself in need of neither. Although I can’t speak for the other women, I can say that I am in no way in need a therapy and I was certainly not exploited.

    While I understand that hearing from happy, healthy and successful women that they are not sad and do not regret their abortion causes anti- choicers a significant amount of cognitive dissonance, I will not excuse your condescending tone. Since my abortion I have graduated college with a bachelor’s degree in two separate fields and was able to graduate magna cum laude (in the top 10% of my university class). Am I currently enrolled in a graduate program and am looking forward to a productive and meaningful career. While I understand that you may not recognize the significance of such an achievement, for me it means gaining knowledge, autonomy and achieving both liberty and happiness.

    While my pregnancy and consequent abortion were not what I had envisioned for my life, I am nonetheless happy with who I am, optimistic about my future, and at peace with my past. I ask for no pity, but merely that you open your heart and mind to my lived experience. You have made it clear here that your heart is of stone and that…well, I doubt that you have much of the other.

    Go get yourself an education. I feel that a Human Biology course would be useful to you.

    Cheers and have a Happy New Year.

    • December 31, 2010 2:36 am

      Katie you were not a “woman” on the show you were a teen, otherwise known as a child. MTV exploited you to sell bad music and terrible clothing.

      But more to the point my mother graduated from college with me as an infant. You have embraced the idea that children “ruin” people’s lives – an idea that when internalized does actually ruin lives, but neither you nor I ruined our parents lives.

      Nothing you have done in your life has not been done by single mothers (like mine) and n matter where you stand on abortion I would hope if you were mature we could all agree that the idea that abortion “saves” people from the “horror” of raising children is nihilism at it’s most basic and disturbing.

      • December 31, 2010 2:40 am

        I meant to say you were reflecting on when you were a child. But the point remains the same. MTV isn’t pro-choice – it’s pro-getting you to shop at hot topic.

      • Anonymous permalink
        December 31, 2010 11:01 am

        Hey Rob,

        Why is it that you put “ruin,” “saves,” and “horror” in quotation marks when responding to katie73?

        I don’t see where she used any of those words in her reply to Lori.

        Are you in the habit of putting words into other peoples mouths?

        One word that katie73 did use was “autonomy,” which should be familiar as a central element of conservative thinking. The right of the individual to self-govern, and to make choices that will guide one’s own future is a linchpin of conservative thought. We all lose some of our autonomous freedom by agreeing to follow governing laws, but the choice that katie73 made was within the scope of those laws. If you have a moral disagreement with the legality of abortion, you should fight to change that law. But until you’re successful in that endeavour, who are you to judge and attempt to put words in the mouth of an individual who is making choices that they believe are best for themselves and their future?

        katie73 is not your mother. Your mother was free to make her own choices. Until conservatives extinguish the right to individual autonomy, katie73 is still free to make her own choices based on her own circumstances and values.

      • December 31, 2010 2:28 pm

        Had you watched the show, you would know that I was 20 years old when I had an abortion.

  2. pleasureherfirst permalink
    December 31, 2010 3:09 am

    Do you really care if someone gets an abortion? really? I mean who cares? Shouldnt we just spend our time money and effort trying to make you richer and celebrating and worshipping you as the Goddess you are? You deserve to be adored, worshipped, and have loads and loads of money thrown at you. Stick with your wicked economic agenda…that is sexy. Take from the poor and give to the rich. You are awesome.

  3. December 31, 2010 10:28 am

    Lori, this was heart wrenching. But a valid assessment of both the modern feminist movement and the MTV-era approach to social programming into the left / liberal viewpoint. It is so sad to see that “Katie” still doesn’t get it. Perhaps it is she who should have taken a Human Biology course. Not only would she have see the uniqueness and miracle of human life, but she would have learned first hand that the “it” she aborted was in fact a human life with so much potential. Potential she was tricked into ending without thought of consequence. This article might be informative to people like Katie. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1105494/so_when_does_life_begin.html?cat=70)

  4. Barbara permalink
    January 1, 2011 9:52 pm

    So women, if you want “choice”, how about asking yourself the following questions, while you are in the comfort and privacy of your own home, BEFORE you go out on a date, to a bar or to any one of a number of social encounters:

    1. Do I know this man and his character. Do I know how he treats others and honors his commitments?

    2. If I were not sexually attracted to him, would I like this man as a friend?

    3. Do I see this man as a part of my life five years down the road…or fifteen? Is this man my husband? If not, are we actively preparing for a wedding that will take place in the VERY near future?

    4. Can he keep a job for any length of time? Do I know anything about his work habits?

    5. What is our economic situation? Have both of us completed our educations? Are both of us together able to provide a stable home for a child?

    If the answer the first five of these questions is “no” or “I don’t know”, then a SMART woman should decide “this is not the time for me to have sex”.

    Being mature is about facing responsibility for your choices, not about mitigating consequences for yourself by harming or destroying an innocent person.

    So if you want “choice” how about getting comfortable saying “no thanks”, “I’m not interested” or “please don’t call me anymore”. or getting up, walking away and, if necessary finding your own ride home if you arein a situation that is getting to the point where I might lose control of my feelings.

    So if you want choice, how about being astute enough to realize that there are a LOT worse things than not having a date on Friday night, and to realize that abortion doesn’t empower women, it enables them.

    • January 2, 2011 12:44 pm

      Holy crap. Can’t stop laughing. But just for fun, I answered your “questions” about my then and current partner on my blog. Really, those a gems.

      • Barbara permalink
        January 2, 2011 10:43 pm

        Holy crap. I’m about to give you another page, so gather all your little web-syncophants for another knee-slappin’ sneer fest.

        First of all about your educational achievements I’ve got a a degree in two different fields myself…computer science and electrical engineering. It gave me a sense of autonomy and pride as well.

        As for this comment:

        “Abortion enables women to do what, exactly? Have happy, healthy relationships? Pursue educational and career goals?”

        Nonsense! Women who are mothers achieve happy healthy relationships, and pursue educational goals all the time. Women who become pregnant sooner than they had planned also put their goals on hold to raise the child and take them up again later. Others choose adoption. So you’re saying that a woman can’t achieve career goals and have happy, healthy relationships without treating her unborn children like chattel and property? No, abortion hasn’t enabled women to have happy relationships and pursue career goals. It’s enabled women to be treated as sex objects and abandoned like used tissue paper when the next “relationship” comes along. Wow, that’s liberating.

        Your attitude is “Me first…My happiness…My success, My goals..My autonomy..my pleasure..that’s all that’s important…to hell with the consequences to anyone else.” If two people with that mindset try to live together, is it any wonder that there are so many divorces? What about the idea of two adults delaying and sublimating their goals, even if it is for a few months, (so that the child can be born and placed for adoption) so that child can live and not die? You know, like that pesky piece of fetal tissue who might want to be cared for and loved? Someone to whom you denied a lifetime of choices?

        In short “hearing from happy, healthy and successful women that they are not sad and do not regret their abortion”, doesn’t cause me a “significant amount of cognitive dissonance”. I don’t judge you for your “lived experiences”. It’s the fact that you are so appallingly callous and cavalier about destroying a helpless, innocent human life. It makes me shudder; thinking that infants, the disabled, and a generation of aging baby-boomers are becoming equally as disposable as the unborn.

        So pin your labels on, like “weird”, “anti-choice” and put me right at the top of your supercilious blog along with more drive…er commentary. I’ll just stick to reading SnarkAndBoobs, a gem of a blog.

    • KushielsMoon permalink
      January 2, 2011 1:12 pm

      And what if we answer “yes” to all of these questions?

  5. KushielsMoon permalink
    January 2, 2011 1:24 pm

    As a feminist women, I disagree with your view of feminist ideas on motherhood. I think motherhood is a grand, fantastic thing- for those who want it. Having children is the best part of some women’s lives.

    While I wish I lived in a world of equality, we don’t yet. While some women may have access to the resources to get them through school/work/life while pregnant or mothering, others do not. This does not mean some women are weak; it means our culture and society has failed to support them. And in the end, some women just don’t want to be pregnant or mothers- and that’s their choice.

    You said “Pro-abortionists deny their very existence. They deny, always, the trauma that abortion may also cause to the woman.”

    I do not deny that some women feel regret or trauma after an abortion. I also do not deny that most women feel relief after an abortion, and never regret their choice. Often, the women who do feel regret were forced or coerced into aborting. This is why I support choice- abortion against someone’s will is just as wrong as forcing a woman to birth against her will. Exhale’s website states “We also know that feelings of happiness, sadness, empowerment, anxiety, grief, relief or guilt are common.” It seems they do not deny the multitude of feelings women have after an abortion either.

    I hope, at the end of the day, we can both step away from the cliches and stereotypes in order to work to help women. Together we should be able to find support for those who lack resources, spread awareness of the many different feelings after abortion and work to help women, regardless of their choices.

  6. MPH permalink
    January 2, 2011 1:35 pm

    Sorry, but one of my buttons has been pushed. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.

    What I continue to fail to understand is why people, on all sides of this debate (or even those who refuse to take a side on this issue), call someone who is clearly a woman a girl.

    Girl – female child
    Woman – female adult

    See, by definition, if a female can get pregnant, she’s an adult. That makes her a woman NOT a girl. Yes, she might be “new” to “womanhood”, but that doesn’t make her less of a woman.

    This seems to be a modern problem, although I have been unable to find its genesis. For instance, 200 years ago, an unmarried 18 year old woman was frequently called an “old maid”. It was assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that because she was unmarried, she was still a virgin (and hence, still a “maiden”). It was common then for young women to marry at 14 and be having their second child at 16.

    For example, according to the Pulitzer Prize for History winning book “Paul Revere and the World He Lived In”, 3 months after his first wife died he married a 21 year old widow with a 5 year old child (her first husband had died fighting in the revolution). While the book wasn’t specific about it, this means she was at most 16 at the birth of her first child, and could have been as young as 15 (if she turned 21, married the next day, and her child turned 6 the day after that, she’d have been pregnant as young as 14 years 3 months). If, as a couple I knew once claimed they were told by their doctor, it takes on average 1 year for a woman who is having sex 3 times per week to get pregnant, that means it is possible this woman was married and having sex at 13, and certainly no later than 16 (she’d have had to get pregnant within 3 months of her 16th birthday to have a 5 year old by the time she was 21), and this was considered NORMAL. The society of the time viewed such young women as ADULTS, who would desire to engage in the adult activity of sex, and so young women were encouraged to marry so as to provide a stable environment for the resulting children.

    Certainly, in staid, straight laced Boston, a reputable silversmith such as Paul would be unlikely to sully his reputation by marrying someone who had dishonored herself in the eyes of the community by having gotten pregnant before her marriage (noticeably, at least). Just to be clear: I am not voicing my personal opinion about this, but am relating the views espoused in the area at that time. Recall that 17th century Boston is where the book “The Scarlet Letter” is set. Attitudes about extramarital sex as related in The Scarlet Letter had not changed much in Boston by the end of the 18th century.

    I am also not advocating a return to such “normalcy”. I am pointing out that not all that long ago the idea that a 14 year old woman got pregnant wasn’t unusual, unless she was still single (there’s evidence that attitudes were still like this in the 1930s, based on parts of the book “The Grapes of Wrath”, and a booked based on the life of the first female doctor in, if I recall correctly, West Virginia, although I can’t recall the title). Refusing to accept that 14 year old females are “women”, and not “girls” is ignoring a reality that has been in existence for millennia (thousands of years ago Jews considered the transition from childhood to adulthood for both genders to occur on the 13th birthday; they were not unique in this view). Ignoring a reality while trying to solve a problem related to it usually results in failures rather than solutions.

    I’m not here to voice my opinion on abortion. I’m not here to advocate for any side of the debate. Nor am I going to suggest any solutions. I’m only here to try to get all sides to understand that when you persist in referring to “women” as “girls”, you’re displaying a bias, possibly unconscious, in favor of a false premise (that pregnant females are still children, despite that the very definition of adulthood is “able to breed”). Adults are driven to breed by natural biologic mechanisms. They cannot be wished away by the false premise that women under some arbitrary age are still girls. This false premise must be rejected, and reality recognized, before any solution can be found. Otherwise you’re just making a loud noise while traveling down the road to failure.

    • January 3, 2011 10:58 pm

      Oh, come on. Your procreational parsing of “girl” and “woman” ignores hundreds of years of cultural grrowth and thousands of years of animal husbandry. Even among barnyard animals “able to breed’ is not synonomous with “adult.” Every farmer knows to keep the immature females away from the males, whether they are cows or cats. Sure, they can get pregnant, but that is the problem: they are not mature enough in mental or physical development to easily carry or raise offspring.

      When the average lifespan was 40 and your ability to accumulate wealth depended on the number of hands, however immature, you could set to tending the fields and herding the goats, it made a lot of sense to start having babies early and often. But I don’t think you can draw any firm conclusions about a society’s concepts regarding adulthood, whether Hittite, Assyrian, or Bostonian, from the age of the girls with whom the men are willing to copulate.

      • MPH permalink
        January 4, 2011 12:30 pm

        “..the age of the girls with whom the men are willing to copulate”.

        We have a term to describe men who copulate with girls: pedophile. So not only are you missing my point, you’re part of the problem I was addressing: people who think of “women” (at least some subset of them) as “girls”. The original topic was abortion (more specifically, an MTV show’s addressing of it). As a prerequisite to getting an abortion, one needs to be pregnant. By definition, a pregnant female is an adult, and hence NOT a “girl”, since, again, by definition, a girl is pre-adult. You’ve displayed the very bias I was pointing out, while trying to refute my post pointing it out. Thanks for proving my point that there are people who persist in thinking of women as girls when they are, without any doubt whatsoever, women.

        Now, to address your animal husbandry point, farmers control when to allow their animals to breed for business reasons. Alas, when young adults choose to have sex is seldom subject to business decisions (unless you’ve got a young woman saving her virginity to auction off on ebay to help fund her college education). But it does prove my point: once a mammal is an adult, it will want to breed immediately, even if waiting a while longer gives better results (as defined by farmers, although not necessarily by the species in question). Humans are mammals, and suffer from the same issues. But where is the “farmer” that will prevent such young adult humans from breeding before they are “.. mature enough in mental or physical development to easily carry or raise offspring”?

        Further, who is to say that a 14 year old woman must be less adequate of a mother than if she had waited until 16, or 18, to have her first child? When it was common for 14 year old women to be married and starting a family, they also had their own mothers, mother in laws, aunts, etc. to provide advice and answer questions. They also likely had several siblings, and had the opportunity to watch their parents deal with them. If they were among the older children in the family, they likely helped raise their younger siblings. I know of one woman, just a few years older than me, who was, at the age of 12, left alone with her younger siblings while her parents were away for the weekend. She had been helping raise her younger siblings for some time, and her parents felt she was able to handle it (the parents were not that far away – nearby hotel, and were accessible by phone). Today, young mothers have access to books, web pages, pediatricians, etc. for advice and to answer questions, in addition to parents, aunts, etc. Is the young cow, pig, chicken, or etc. in a similar situation?

        I’m not contending that young people would be better or worse off by not breeding as soon as they are able. I am contending that if you define a problem as one that involves “girls”, you’re talking about females that cannot get pregnant, and are not driven by their hormones (and such) to breed. Yet the original topic, being related to abortion, presupposes that you not only can get pregnant, but already have. Hence the problem cannot be one that involves girls, it must involve women. By referring to women as girls, you’re coloring the topic, at least subconsciously, in a way that doesn’t help. If we had a term for women who had gone through menopause (perhaps we do and I just don’t know it), and that term was used in this debate (either instead of or in addition to girls), I’d say the same thing about it.

        So if the problem that is trying to be solved is, in any way, related to young women having sex, unless you’re going to contend that we, as a society, somehow treat young women as livestock and somehow sequester them from all adult men, well, you’re going to be faced with each young woman making up her own mind about whether to have sex or not. And absent the ability to perform such a sequestering until some third party decides that a sequestered party is “mature enough in mental or physical development to easily carry or raise offspring”, your animal husbandry example does not apply, and even supports my argument. What you’re saying is, absent the sequestering by the farmer, such newly adult animals WILL attempt to breed; which is almost the point I am making about young women. I am not saying that they WILL attempt to breed, but that they are being “encouraged” to, if you will, by basic biological imperatives. Pretending this is not so is stupid.

        I was not contending that society would be better or worse off if young women wait until some event (like completing school) before starting to have sex. I was contending that defining the problem as being related to “girls” as opposed to “women” means you’ve misdiagnosed the problem. Even you’ve made that error above.

        For instance, let’s imagine that the topic of the original post was related to car theft. If you’re trying to stop car theft, and people keep asking, “How do we keep honest people from stealing cars?”, you’ve obviously misdiagnosed the problem. Honest people don’t even WANT to steal cars. But if you’ve accepted the premise that honest people steal cars, how likely are you to develop a strategy that will reduce car theft? I’d say, not too likely.

        So what I am saying is, one of the differences between “girls” and “women” is women are driven to breed, and girls are not (the same is true of men and boys). Yes, we humans can override this drive with reason, given education (it doesn’t have to be formal education). I contend that in the absence of some amount of such education, young adults will start having sex as soon as they find a willing partner (and in some case, even with the education), just as in your animal husbandry example. In the past, our society has recognized this, and took steps to prevent unwed pregnancies in an apparent effort to ensure that the resulting children have two parents to raise them. The most common such step was to get young women married at ages that today we’d find scandalous.

        I am not assessing the relative merits of current and past societies’ handling of such matters, beyond the point that it appears to me that past society accepted that 14 year old women would want to have sex, and today’s society seems to be saying that they won’t want to, as evidenced by the current widespread use of the term “girl” to refer to them. In our past, the only way to prevent pregnancy was abstaining from sex (no modern birth control). While, as you say, in the rural society of the past it made economic sense to have children young, I contend that at least one reason for encouraging young adults to marry was the realization that they wouldn’t abstain from sex for very long once they had reached adulthood. I further contend that a sign of either willful or unconscious ignoring of this realization is using the term “girl” when talking about “women”.

        Were women better off in the past or now? I don’t know, but that wasn’t what my point was about. My point was about the natural biological urges that exist in women that don’t exist in girls: the urge to breed. If you’re going to persist in thinking that, in any problem that relates to procreation, the females involved are “girls”, you’re not only WRONG about that, you’re doomed to not find a solution because you’ve misdiagnosed the problem.

        Sorry about the length … again.

  7. SandStef permalink
    January 18, 2011 7:44 pm

    I don’t know what happened to MTV and I’m not sure what teen pregnancy, abortion, and all the other crap that’s on there now has to do with MUSIC, but I have to say I’m so glad my teens have the intelligence and good sense to NOT watch that channel. They think it’s stupid.

  8. Carl permalink
    January 20, 2011 9:06 pm

    Abortion is murder have fun in Hell!

  9. September 26, 2014 7:30 pm

    From a sonographer’s perspective: Not Just A Ball Of Cells http://allisonfshepard.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/not-just-a-ball-of-cells-2/

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention MTV’s Teen Abortion Sales Pitch: It’s Just “A Ball of Cells” « Snark And Boobs -- Topsy.com
  2. Morality and the Slippery Slope « Snark Pundit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: