Archives
4:48:00 PM EST
Jamie Lynn Spears and Britney
Yes, it is being publicized that 16 year old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. Is not this a great example for 16 year old girls everywhere. As I have said repeatedly, this message is especially disastrous for POOR and BLACK teenagers.
Lynn Spears, the mother--you can't make a more serious indictment than this--of Britney and Jamie Lynn--has evidently already made a one million dollar deal for pictures of the birth/new baby. This does not mean that Jamie Lynn Spears can afford to be immoral, while the poor and minorities cannot. Look at Britney. Her lack of values has messed her up royally. But it is absolutely DISASTROUS for most girls to have children, OR SEX, this young (see archives for numbeous blog entries).
Yet there is a media campaign on. Is it a campaign to STOP teenage sex (as a disastrous life choice)? Don't be silly. This is the MAINSTREAM MEDAI we are talking about. It is a mainstream media and leftist campaign AGAINST abstinence education.
Is it any wonder that I tell you that leftists, and the mainstream media, have blood/lives on their hands because of their disgraceful encouragement of promiscuous sex. As I have repeatedly shown in this blog, SEX (of the promiscusous, non-marital kind) is hazardous to your health (MUCH more hazardous than cigarette smoking, where there WAS a media supported propaganda campaign against it).
It is minority and poor women/families wno have paid the most severe price for this leftist/media alignment with the sacred leftist God of SEX (although Britney Spears and Paris Hilton show that being rich is not enough to make up for a lack of healthy values).
Written by skip3366 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
"as an anti-abortion supporter, there is no question for you that a 16 year old who makes a mistake must (to be moral) keep the child."
As usual, my younger daughter has missed the point all of the way arond. I DO oppose abortion, because it is indistinguishable (scientifically and morally) from infanticide. If I did not oppose one, I would not oppose the other. I DO think it is the moral thing for Jamie Lynn Spears NOT TO ABORT the child (NOT the same thing as "keeping" the child--I ahve no prblem giving children up for adoption, and there is a SHORTAGE of babies for adoption in this country.
The more fundamental problem with Kyla is that she mistakes what I said as "criticism" of the Spears family. I don't CARE about the Spears family (except in the general way I care about all human beings). I CARE that our society continues to ENCOURAGE unhealthy sex, when it should be DISCOURAGING it. -
I feel like this is tied into the abortion issue, which I know you feel very strongly about. Your view is teenagers should be abstinent, but they're young, and people make mistakes. You are 16, and you make a mistake--as an anti-abortion supporter, there is no question for you that a 16 year old who makes a mistake must (to be moral) keep the child.
So in my opinion your criticism of Jamie Lynn and her family can only go so far. Despite her sister's mistakes, Jamie Lynn's career was going well--she was on her way to stardom, and no one really associated her too much with Briteny; the public basically understood and accepted that she was the 'good sister.' Well, then she gets pregnant--what would any other 16 year old female celebrity on her way to major stardom do? What would her family tell her to do? What do you think so many young women in hollywood have probably done in the face of similar circumstaces (and with youth and fame there is a lot of irresponsibility and a lot of mistakes)? What would a family of a young girl on her way to a bright career have told her to do? -
Here, Jamie Lynn decided to keep the child; she could have aborted it, and none of us would be the wiser. We'd be touting her as a great young female star who managed to do better than her sister. Instead, she made the "moral" choice (for you) and decided to keep the child, in the face of scathing media scrutiny, and seriously risking her future career. Her family did not demand her to abort the child; if they had, they would probably have been successful, and we would not be hearing about this now.
I guess what I am saying is perhaps you should have an entry praising her, being as anti-abortion as you are. The sensible thing to do--thinking purely rationally, not taking into account one's moral position--in this situation, considering her age, her career, and her fame was to get an abortion. She didn't. Shouldn't she and her family be your hero? She made a mistake, yes--but when does being anti-abortion matter? Those who don't make mistakes want to keep the child anyway. It only matters when someone does make a mistake, when someone would rather not be a mother. So you will say she should have been abstient. She was not perfectly abstinent, though, and she obviously was not using effective protection--she made a mistake. And in your opinion, she did exactly what she should have done, in spite of the fact that every pressure in the world was telling her not to ever say a word about it and take the back entrance into Planned Parenthood.
12/24/07 12:27 PM
My point then is that for you, Jamie Lynn may in fact be a good example; poor minority teens may feel a lot of pressure to abort the child. You are poor and 16 and the father is young too and you don't have a job and your family has no money, etc. Not sure what the going rate is for abortions, but Planned Parenthood certainly tries to make it available for low-income families--in any event, cheaper than having a child. So the point is Jamie Lynn's situation is not so great for different reasons already discussed, yet Jamie Lynn did not abort the child. So perhaps the example she is setting is not necessarily to have sex at 16, but rather if you do make a mistake and get pregnant at 16, you do not abort the child, even if rationally you should.