Social justice typically has to do with promoting equality under the law, and equal access to resources (such as education and healthcare).
However, these advocates don’t seem to realize that by embracing sexual and reproductive liberty, they have inadvertently fostered inequality for the children who are created as a result of those choices. In embracing sexual and reproductive freedom, the older generation uses technology and ideals like a fulcrum to lever the younger generation, their children, in a way that suits them even though it violates the child’s ontology. This is often not what their parents did to them. Some examples:
- Single mother
- Two dads
- Two moms
- Suppressed birth records
- Two homes
- 800 half siblings
- Three legal parents
None of these are what is best for the kids. They are all manifestations of the older generation taking advantage of the power imbalance between them and the younger generation.
Sexual and reproductive liberty is a “might makes right” philosophy.
Abortion is the most obvious example of how this plays out. Sex makes babies, and having even contracepted sex is a dice roll. There is no such thing as a guarantee for pregnancy-free coitus.
This means that when people roll the dice and turn up pregnant, that doesn’t give them a right to an abortion. They engaged in an activity that had no assurance of being 100% pregnancy free. If they then destroy that life, they have used technology and ideals to take advantage of the power imbalance. The have participated in “might makes right.”
But there are other inequalities as well, stemming from the “might makes right” thinking fostered by sexual and reproductive liberty.
We see a tremendous and growing amount of inequality in children’s family structures, and in the respect shown to children’s family trees. If you are lucky enough to know where you come from, and to have an intact ontological understanding of yourself, it is probably not due to your parents engaging in sexual and reproductive liberty. It was probably due to them staying together and making sacrifices. I don’t find it coincidental that kids raised with their own married parents fare better, on the aggregate, than kids raised any other way.
Sometimes an inequality can happen due to unforeseen circumstances, a parent dying, for example. If this happens, we all understand it that pain. There is lots of emotional support for those kids. For example, there are lots of sympathy cards available for people who have lost a mother or father due to death.
But when a child’s family tree is severed or split due to somebody exercising sexual or reproductive liberty, there is zero cultural support for those kids. They’re supposed to stop feeling sorry for themselves, care more for their parents’ happiness than their own, get over it, and just, somehow, get on with their lives as if nothing is wrong. I believe that this teaches them to lie and be codependent. They have to ignore how they feel in order to make their parents happy.
I would like to see the social justice community defend children’s family structures, their family trees founded on natural marriage, and therefore their ontological understanding of themselves. It would mean that they would have to stop supporting sexual and reproductive liberty. But I think it would be a good trade since they have inadvertently embraced a “might makes right” way of dealing with the younger generation. The pro-life movement is a youth movement for all the reasons I’m outlining here. Abortion supporters did not predict this after Roe v. Wade. Shouldn’t social justice advocates acknowledge this and incorporate the zeal and energy of the youth into their advocacy?
As I have argued before, Christian sexual ethics is better than any of the alternatives in this regard. I cannot go along with the injustice of chopping down or dismembering a child’s family tree for the sole purpose of making adults feel comfortable, happy, or fulfilled.
Image citation: Salak, Janna. With Deepest Sympathy. Jackson: 3dRose LLC, n.d. Amazon.com. 3dRose. Web. 28 May 2016.