Carol Platt Liebau: A Wasted Opportunity

Monday, November 20, 2006

A Wasted Opportunity

Actress Scarlett Johansson is slamming President Bush for holding traditional views on sex, criticizing abstinence education, and declaring that, if the President had his way, "Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions."

In the past, Johansson has protested that she's "not promiscuous". Whether or not she's promiscuous, she is certainly a bubblehead. Perhaps it's not surprising that she condemns education that encourages abstinence as "unrealistic" -- she's opined in the past that "I do think on some basic level we are animals, and by instinct we kind of breed accordingly."

What Johansson seems to ignore is the fact that human beings have many impulses. What elevates us above animals is our capacity to establish moral standards that prompt us to curb those impulses in the service of higher values.

No doubt she's aware of the power of example . . . she's let it be known that she's tested for HIV twice yearly. Given the influence over young girls that she wields, it's a shame that -- rather than encouraging young girls to behave in ways that will protect their self-respect and physical and emotional health -- she simply buys into the reductionist notion that young people are little more than breeding animals, who can't be expected to exercise self-restraint when it comes to sex.


Blogger gmartin55 said...

Beautifuly stated.

George Martin

9:55 PM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

I find it truly curious that one of the human impulses that results in a very serious rush of self produced cerebral chemicals and quite a bit of pleasure is the only one that concerns you and people of your ilk.

Okay I know you think I'm damned to Hell or something because I'm a lesbian, hmmm wait a minute. Let's rephrase that. You think I am a sinner because I am a lesbian but when you come right down to it that sexy young actress is spot on. I think more souls are in jeopardy in America because they rake enough food into their garbage cans every day to fill the little bellies of thousands of kids in Darfur or Somalia or Congo or even the DPRK. This kind of waste doesn't register on your sin scope though does it.

That type of waste doesn't decrease the white population in America it creates jobs for more people at landfills to manage the 50 million tons of food garbage that is pitched out annually.

But abortion does. The wealthy elites are breeding like flies like they used to and since that Rockefeller Commission report in 1972 held that big mirror up to white society thousands of people including well educated women like yourself have shouted into the wind that they are moral to hold the position that they dare tell another woman what to do with their body. Forcing women to carry unwanted children to term Is reducing them to the status of breeding animals. Making women subject to the whims of their husbands makes them chattel. All of this protestant dogma is designed to take rights as human beings from women and give those rights to the men who OWN them.

Plain and simple so there need be no spin on the issue: If a woman feels that she does not wish to carry a child any longer it is her right to do as she pleases with that fetus, period. I would prefer the medical community not do late term abortions or even partial birth abortions but those are my opinions and that a 5 bucks will get you a latte in St Louis.

Carol, if you and those who think like you don't like it then do what you've done in Darfur, and on civil rights for blacks in 60s and on helping the poor in America today through a decent living wage. Turn your backs and look the other way.


4:13 AM  
Blogger peregrine said...

You said that we humans had the "capacity to establish moral standards." There is all the difference in the world between that phrase and the phrase "we have the capacity to DISCOVER the (one) moral standard." Anyone can establish a moral standard (eg, four legs good, two legs better). But we must realize that the moral law is not to be established but only accepted or rejected, and if rejected, then all "moral codes" are merely voluntary and of no weight. ("Without God, all things are possible.")

How can we criticize anyone else for being "bad" or "good" if all moral codes are merely voluntary. Yet, despite the blather of "my truth, your truth" etc., we really do believe that some actions are "bad" and some "good." Why else get so exercised about, for example, politics?

As Allan Bloom said, we are really only living on the 'value fat' of prior generations who recognized the moral law. We in the West are like those cartoon characters that run off the edge of a cliff and keep on running until they notice there is nothing but air below. A few have realized that we're walking on air (eg, Alasdair MacIntyre) but no one wants to hear.

11:21 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

And they'll completely ignore the Science of nature when it comes to the creation of life. They'll say, "oh, you were born female in a male body...let's just change your gender to fit your needs." What's scientific about that? Nada. But mention that evolution is a scientific failure, and you'll be labeled an extreme lunatic that must keep your mouth shut.

12:40 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...


Wonderfully stated, excellent example of speaking of what you know nothing. Sex is hardly the ONLY impulse that raises red flags. And it isn't "sex" per se, but certain manifestations of it. We have absolutely no qualms about sex between a man and woman married to each other. It's a beautiful thing. But even there, it can be taken to an extreme point where it can cloud other issues of the relationship in a negative way. So it's really not "sex", but how sex is viewed in our society today.

Sex is really quite a selfish act. It's very masturbatory even with a partner because it's not likely that one would participate without the pleasurable experience. The sex "drive" is the strong desire to experience that pleasure, not to give pleasure to someone else. This is why, in my opinion, the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition frowns on sex outside of marriage; it's a manifestation of self-worship. It's also every bit as base as giving in to the desire to knock the crap out of someone who's bothering you. Each is a strong desire or impulse, but to give in is to ignore God and His Will.

As to being damned to hell, it's not being a lesbian that'll do it, it's engaging in lesbian behavior that will do it. If I'm naturally violent, that's not what makes me nasty. It's acting in a violent manner that does it. The same goes for being a sinner. You have to engage in the sin to be a sinner. Having desires is human. As to condemnation, there's only one who condemns you, and that's YOU, by engaging in behavior God forbids. He set the rules and gave us the choice to follow them or not. So what you hear from Christians (aside from Fred Phelps) are reminders of what you are doing to yourself.

It's quite typical of those who are incapable of controlling their desires to find ways to rationalize their behavior, to make it "good" as opposed to sinful. People of your "ilk" do this constantly and to incredible lengths. To further deflect criticism, they will then raise up issues such as hunger in foreign lands in an attempt to place their "accusers" in a "you're no better" category. It's sad, really. The sin of scraping one's plate of excess food after a meal is an man-made sin to make real sinners feel better about themselves. Good luck with that.

Your abortion rant is also a diversion. I doubt you know any wealthy elites who are breeding like flies or if you even know any wealthy elites at all. Doesn't matter. If they are breeding that much, as wealthy elites they can afford it. And it's good that people who can afford it make babies. Don't wanna be dying out like Europe is.

But it's pretty arrogant to believe you know the mind of those who would seek to inspire people to raise the bar on their lives by exerting a little self-control of their sexual impulses, the lack of which has led to all sorts of nasty things for society. That doesn't make us more moral, it makes us pragmatic and sensable. Now truly, there really isn't any such thing as "unwanted" pregnancies (rape excepted, but only by degrees). When women, who supposedly are capable of making their own choices, choose to engage in intercourse, it's pretty stupid to expect that the product of that activity isn't a human being endowed with the same right to life as she has. So when on engages in that activity which by design of nature or God, is for the procreation of human life, how can the pregnancy not be wanted? If you yank on a cow's teat, how can you be pissed that you got milk on your pants? It's what it's designed for. And this is another case of the person, in this case a woman, putting herself in these situations that you describe. And this statement:

"All of this protestant dogma is designed to take rights as human beings from women and give those rights to the men who OWN them."

...could not be more childish and self-serving and laughably wrong (picture me pointing at you and laughing uncontrollably).

So, plain and simple so there need be no spin on the issue: if a woman feels she no longer wishes to carry the CHILD that she invited into existence by virtue of her engaging in sexual intercourse, then she's the worst kind of selfish murderer, period. And if you don't like it, it won't matter because you're too self-centered to care about the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind. BTW, what have YOU done for Darfur lately?

12:19 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...


I believe the phrase is more accurately put, "WITH God, all things are possible." To say that as humans we have the capacity to establish moral standards, this covers ALL humans, even those who don't believe the Truth of the Bible. God isn't required for a society to establish standards, He's just the Perfect source. I know several atheists who are pretty nice people as far as I can tell. One or two might be mistaken for Christians. It's helpful if one can present some convincing argument for one's own standards if those standards vary from tradition.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure where you're going.

12:25 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

"Forcing women to carry unwanted children to term Is reducing them to the status of breeding animals."

Women can't be reduced to animal status. Check. But this?

"Plain and simple so there need be no spin on the issue: If a woman feels that she does not wish to carry a child any longer it is her right to do as she pleases with that fetus, period."

Fifty per cent of those "fetuses" ARE women, Diane. And what have you reduced THEM to? A purse with a worn and broken strap?

Come to think of it, Diane's attitude could help shed light on the phenomenon of Hollywood 'stars' shopping for children in Africa likes it is some kind of new, trendy boutique.

I'll save my "modest proposal" for my own blog.

6:42 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Diane, first of all, why did you feel the need to tell us your sexual practices? I thought what you did in privite was just that...private. Second, your "fetus" is not you! I prefer the term, unborn baby, we never should forget that important fact.
The unborn baby is it's own being with it's own blood type, it's own DNA, it's own genes and just as important, half the product of the male, whether he is on the scene or not. Please don't reduce the unborn baby to that of a, "blob of tissue" as some abortionists have done, and please don't presume that you have the right to kill it. That leads down a horrible slippery slope that we, as a country and as individuals do not want, and should not go down. Eventhough we have begun that dangerous journey, we might be able to reverse course in our country's near future. Time will tell!

6:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home