Skip to content
Published: March 9, 2011 5:06 pm to Opinion Column

Hooray for Hollywood

Life Decisions International has compiled a lengthy list of celebrities who support Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, either through simple lip-service or by donating considerable time and money. In case you’re wondering who’s on the list, the answer is: almost everyone. Brace yourself before you read it. You’re going to see people on that list you really like, and you’re going to feel disappointed.

From music to film and beyond, most of Hollywood not only supports legal abortion but rallies around Planned Parenthood to defend it, showing once again how out of touch the entertainment industry is with the rest of America. As Ramesh Ponnuru delineated in his book The Party of Death, most Americans are unaware just how few restrictions there are on abortion in the United States. The average American is probably not aware that there are places in this country where a woman can go have her baby killed at any time before the due date, for any reason at all. Most Americans are not aware that the ban on Partial Birth Abortion was a ban on one particular method of killing the baby in the second and third trimester. It was not a ban on late-term abortions. Those still happen, and they are still legal in some states.

Gwyneth Paltrow, who along with her mother Blythe Danner is a Planned Parenthood supporter, appeared on the hit TV show “Glee” the other night as the substitute sex ed teacher. In an episode I like to call “Planned Parenthood: The Musical,” the show’s writers played mouthpiece to the PP approach to educating the young about sex: abstinence is stupid, more information — even in the Google age — is the only way, and here’s a cucumber-based demonstration of how to put on a condom. The only missing plank on the platform was abortion, which I imagine the show will get around to eventually.

Paltrow’s character Holly, in a conversation in which another teacher (Jayma Mays) advocated celibacy, referred to her as a “crazy Pope lady.” Holly began the class’s sex ed “lesson” by singing a song, along with the class, that featured a refrain of “Do you want to touch me there?” After a few minutes, the two girls from the celibacy club shrugged, smiled, and got up and joined in the fun, after Holly assured them they were “naïve, and possibly frigid.” Meanwhile, throughout the episode the president of the celibacy club confirmed this assertion by being both naïve and frigid. Later, Holly encouraged two girls in their fledgling lesbian relationship while the father of the main gay character lamented that there were many schools without sexual education that covered gay sex.

The opposing argument – that celibacy is often chosen by teenagers and adults who wish to make an intelligent moral decision; that abstinence education has been proven to reduce teen sex; and that condoms and birth control pills often lead to unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions – this opposing viewpoint was non-existent. The only advocate for celibacy was, as mentioned, a woman with a personality disorder who couldn’t stand to be touched even by her husband. (See flippancy.”)

It’s common sense that abortion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It begins with a lack of basic sexual morality, the kind of lack we often see touted, even in “family” programming, as routine and even enlightened. The simple truth is if people only had sex with those with whom they intended to have children, abortion would not be a problem. This is why Planned Parenthood offers more than just abortion services. It’s not because they care about women; their own stated reason for existing is population control. No, they peddle cheap pills and free condoms and encourage the underage to have sex, as Live Action’s own investigations have discovered, even when their partners are adults who are endangering them.

They do this because, as former abortion clinic director turned pro-life advocate Carol Everett has said, “… [B]irth control sells abortions. If I could get into fourth, fifth, sixth grades, I’d say, ‘Your mother’s an old fuddy-duddy about sex, isn’t she?’ They would all nod and say yes. So I’d tell them to come to me. I’d give them a low-dose pill.’”

The great battle cry we’ve heard for years is, “They’re gonna do it anyway!” This is true. But to illustrate with an extreme example, people are going to commit murder anyway, but as a society we still pretty strongly encourage people not to do it, and I daresay, were it perfectly legal, they’d probably do it quite a bit more often.

Sex before marriage is not new to our time, but what is new is that in the last fifty years or so, beginning with the sexual revolution of the 1960s, we as a culture have slowly unburdened ourselves of a high standard, or really any standard, when it comes to sexual morality. In 1955, a young woman having sex with her boyfriend, though not unheard of, was considered far from ideal. Today, there is no ideal, and the fact that teenagers will have sex with each other is par for the course – as are teen pregnancy, abortion, single motherhood, the welfare state, and juvenile delinquency. Coincidence? No.

Planned Parenthood delights in the death of sexual standards, and Hollywood helps them sell it. Like the character of Holly, they break down a young woman’s natural modesty about sex and assure her it’s the most natural thing in the world to pack her purse with flavored condoms. Why? Because a young woman who says “yes” to sex before she’s ready could one day be a young woman who says “yes” to an abortion, allowing PP to continue their intended mission: ridding the world of “human weeds.”

And my, how the money rolls in.

About Kristen Hatten

Kristen is a writer and comedian who makes people mad on the Internet. She is Vice President of New Wave Feminists and enjoys taxidermy, yachting, and 19th century French poetry. Stalk her relentlessly for fun and profit.
View all posts by Kristen Hatten

  • Adrrya

    Okay, I really hope they were not comparing sex to murder in that article. How do those two even compare in the slightest? I mean, really??

    • FinalEcho

      Note the phrase "extreme example."

      Let that sink in. . .

      Alright, now let's examine the actual point being made (which you seem to have strawmanned to death):

      —> "People will do it anyway," is a terrible defense for immoral/questionable behavior. <–

      Go ahead, use it on any argument ya like, and it'll sound just as stupid: "People will steal anyway, so why make it illegal?" "People will have abortions anyway, so why make it illegal?" "Underaged drinking will happen anyway, so why make it illegal?" "People will pick their noses in public anyway, so why discourage it?" "Six year olds will hear swearing anyway, so why not allow swearing on kid shows?" . . . Do I need to go on? Didn't think so.

      • Adrrya

        I wasn't talking about abortion, I was talking about sex. Which I know, you know, everyone knows that many teenagers are going to engage in. Sex is not illegal (except for some cases obviously), and therefore people should be taught safe ways to engage in it. I said nothing about abortion or any illegal activity in my post. I am simply saying, that murder (a completely illegal act), can by no means be compared to sex even in an "extreme" case. That is all that I was saying, I didn't slam any other part of the article.

        • FinalEcho

          Again, you throw a stawman straight out of left field. I used abortion as an example. Just as the author of this article used murder. You also weren't talking about people picking their noses in public, but I used that as an example as well. Note the very term: example. (please, reread my post. You've obviously misunderstood it)

          The point of all these examples (which you've missed TWICE now) is not to say it is the same thing (again, note: example), or even on the same level, but rather that the argument that: "People will do it anyway," is illogical. No matter what you're using it for.

          To shoot down/mock abstinence education because some kids won't listen to it is ridiculous. For the record, I agree, kids need sex education. I think abstinence is an important part of that. More so, even, than "safe sex" (which is [and they don't tell you this in high school sex-ed] not really all that safe at all).

          • Adrrya

            When did I shoot/mock abstinence education? I was only saying that the example used in the article was a tad ridiculous, as obviously "safer" sex education does need to be presented to teenagers as many of them "are going to do it anyway;" even if they are educated with a program that pushes abstinence only. I mean, if they weren't going to do it anyway this obviously would not be a problem. And since sex is not illegal, the "they are going to do it anyway" argument does hold validity in this case.

            And once again I only commented on one phrase in the article, I just felt like the comparison between the two was kind of ridiculous. I agree that kids should be taught the value of abstinence, but we can't be so naive as to think that none of them will ever have sex. That is all I'm saying, nothing else.

          • FinalEcho

            Hopeless. Just hopeless. Mind numbingly frustrating how I write one thing, and you interpret it as something ENTIRELY different. . .I never said you shot/mocked abstinence. I was explaining what the article was about. Why she used the example. And why said example was, indeed, valid. That's all. And I'll end this discussion here. If you don't get it yet, you never will.

          • Adrrya

            Hooooly cows all that I was trying to say in my post was why I did not think the comparison is relevant. I am not "hopeless," if anything you can't understand I am not attacking anything else in the argument just defending my viewpoint. I think we can both agree to disagree that we will never reach the same conclusion as to whether or not the comparison was relevant. That is ALL I have been trying to say, I don't know why you keep saying I'm not getting the point? I get the point of the article, but that being said I still do not think the comparison is relevant, and I explained why multiple times. I don't know why you keep making a mountain out of a molehill.

          • Rosaryjim

            @Adrrya
            I suppose it would be naive to think kids aren't going to smoke pot or take ecstasy. We could provide drug-test kits to kids, to make sure their drugs are clean ( like dancesafe.org), provide fresh needles, school them on bong etiquette (don't be a Bogart, now, Timmy!), and educate them on how to get high safely. Kids die from drug overdoses every year – why do we persist in the same naivete and refuse to teach them how to use safely?

            Is that less ridiculous compared with murder? A higher percentage of teens smoke weed daily compared with daily sex. (nida.nih.gov) And, really, if we're going to have a right to control our own bodies, what we put into them is certainly a valid form of control. Actually, it's quite arguable that drug use is far more sovereign than abortion, because another human being isn't involved in the process.

            I think I posted this elsewhere, but it's downright strange that a woman who uses smack while pregnant would generally be considered to be doing something awful, but abortion is acceptable.

          • Rosaryjim

            Oh, I also found that, by age 15, more kids had tried pot than had sex. (15% for pot vs 13% for vaginal intercourse)

          • Adrrya

            But by age 19, 70 percent of teens of both sexes will have had vaginal intercourse. There are different sites that have different statistics for marijuana use, but on average it looks like 50 percent try it by 19, and around 26 percent are frequent users.

          • Adrrya

            Okay, here is another thing I don't like sex being compared to. Drugs and sex are completely different things. I mean, sex is legal while drugs are not. We obviously should not condone kids participating in illegal activities by showing them how to do it. But sex is a completely natural bodily function. While some kids may not know how to get a hold of pot, every teenager has the option of engaging in sex, and therefore they should be educated on safer and more responsible ways to do it.

          • livewell8

            "every teenager has the option of engaging in sex"

            Not sure every teenage boy would agree.

          • Adrrya

            I meant more along the lines of they know how to have sex, and can usually engage in it if they really want to. But not every teenager knows where to get drugs or how to use them. But mainly sex is not illegal, and if done responsibly will not have nearly the amount of consequences as drugs. However if not done responsibly STDs, teenage pregnancy, etc can occur and we should do all that we can to prevent them.

          • Rosaryjim

            @ Adrrya,
            I would ask you what you *are* okay with sex being compared to.

            Sex is truly unique, to be sure, but the point of comparison is not only to discover how two things are alike, but how they are different. Comparing two things perfectly identical is as pointless as comparing two things completely disparate.

            The trouble with stating that sex is "a natural bodily function", and then stating that they should "be educated on safer ways to do it" is that outside of monogamous marriage, "safe sex" often means "unnatural sex". Taking a normal bodily function and then subverting the normal bodily process that results from engaging in that activity makes it shift from natural to unnatural.

            Eating is natural. Eating as much as one wants whenever one wants, but prohibiting the food from being digested is considered *disordered* eating. If bulimia seems like too much of a stretch, imagine a technology that allowed one to put a sort of plastic bag down the esophagus and into the stomach. Instead of digesting the food (naturally), one could just pull it out and throw it away after enjoying the binge. A sort of binge-and-purge food condom, if you will. Or consider a pill that would work like contraception, allowing the food to travel the digestive tract without being absorbed in any way. The natural process becomes unnatural. I'm sure lots of people (especially in the US) would LOVE that kind of technology and would fight for their right to use it, but "rights" are a different topic. The argument that one can do something "natural" as unnaturally and as often as one wants and still call it "natural" is lovely wishful thinking, but not terribly consistent.

            I would also point out that, while sex is "legal", in several states it is not actually legal before a certain age of consent, and in most illegal if one partner is over 18 and the other not, or if there is more than 4 years difference, etc…One of the biggest concerns about PP is that they have repeatedly ignored laws designed to protect minors so they may be sold an abortion without question. It is also legal for a man to fly to Thailand and have sex with a 10-year old, but what is legal does not always equal that which is moral. One of the many reasons why it is acceptable to compare an immoral but legal practice to an immoral and illegal practice.

            As far as kids "not knowing how to get a hold of pot (or other drugs)", why have more 15-year-olds reported smoking pot than had sex? (Lolz to livewell8, btw.)

            I would also argue that marijuana and ecstasy use would not only have less harm than drinking alcohol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210 ) but less far so than sex. STIs are often carry lifelong consequences, there are the emotional consequences of teenage sex (something that is known to ruin many relationships even with adults), and the issue involving the very "natural" consequence of conceiving a new human being is the entire focus of this website.

            The natural societal defense for teens and safe sex is marriage. A teen who is not emotionally mature enough to make a lifelong commitment to another person is not ready for the emotional ramifications of sexual intercourse. That has been the sociological norm in the majority of cultures for thousands of years, and has only recently been easily subverted, much to the detriment of our society.

          • Adrrya

            The problem is, many people do not hold the same values as you do and there will always be teenagers having sex. In order for them not to get STIs or an early pregnancy (which can often lead to abortion), it is imperative that they know more responsible ways to engage in it. Obviously I believe that abstinence should be encouraged as well but it is naive to think, especially with the media today, that all teens uphold the same moral standards as you. In fact (as I'm sure you know) many people do not believe saving sex until marriage is an issue at all.

            As for sex being natural, if you say that using condoms and other forms of birth control take the natural nature out of it then most married couples do not have natural sex (except for family planning of course). You can't really saying a married couple using condoms is any more natural than a teenage couple using condoms without bringing in one's own religious views and morals. What is "immoral" to you is not necessarily seen as immoral by a large chunk of the population.

          • Rosaryjim

            @Adrrya
            "Teens will always have sex, therefore they should be shown safe ways of doing so"

            None of the comparisons that FinalEcho or I provided seemed to be satisfactory to you. Can you provide some analogous examples that you would approve? Teens (or adults) will always _____, therefore they should be shown safe ways of doing so.

          • ok_go

            i mostly agree with what you're saying….. it's probably true sex has more consequences than drugs….. though drugs still have a lot of consequences! my guess would be that having sex is actually one of the consequences of doing drugs, since drugs make you make bad decisions….. so actually drugs are maybe worse than sex, because drugs often cause sex (but sex doesn't really cause drugs)

            but i don't really understand what you're saying about the 'natural' thing…. i mean we have all sorts of technology that is 'unnatural'….. vaccines against things like polio and smallpox are unnatural…. C-sections are unnatural…. just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't really illuminate the question of whether something is right or wrong to consider whether it's natural or not. you have to figure out if something's right or wrong based on other factors.

          • Rosaryjim

            @ ok_go
            The term "unnatural" has several definitions and connotations, but in this case I was referring to "not in accordance with or determined by nature".

            Other than contraception, there are no other medical practices or prescriptions that have the sole purpose of subverting a normally functioning organ system. With "the pill" in particular, the idea is to pump a healthy woman so full of hormones so that her typical bodily function ceases to operate in its' natural manner, in most cases it "fools" the endocrine system into "thinking it's pregnant".
            In the case of c-sections, the aim is to take a system that is functioning abnormally (giving birth) and find a way to produce a normal result (save the life of mother and baby), with vaccines the aim is to improve or augment the system's current functioning to make it work better.
            Having a c-section for convenience sake would be unnatural, just as cosmetic surgery is unnatural. They may be culturally accepted practices, (even considered "normal") but fall outside the scope of the field of "medicine" even though they are performed by medical personnel.

            @adrrya
            You're right regarding contraceptive use being no different for married/unmarried which is why it's incorrect to confuse "natural" and "moral" as you did. Oftentimes the adjectives "immoral" or "unnatural" can be ascribed to the same act, but that does not mean they equal each other. It is unnatural for a human to attempt to mate with another animal, whether that is considered immoral is defined by a different set of criteria.

            Most married couples today are having unnatural sex. Coming from someone who contracepted for 10 years and then switched to NFP, I must say I am surprised what a small sacrifice it is for such incredible gains. I wholeheartedly endorse NFP for anyone who wants a deeper, more intimate, and spicier marriage.

          • ok_go

            @Rosaryjim,

            you say that it's wrong to confuse "natural" with "moral" — i totally get that, but i don't understand, in that case, why you are bringing up the idea of the natural, thereby implying some kind of value judgment on the type of sex that other married couples have. what purpose does the term "natural" have for you, if it is not equivalent with "moral"? why do you bring up the idea of natural if it's not to suggest that the natural way is somehow the more morally correct way?

            you said that you're making an exception to the rule for any medication that subverts a normally functioning organ system in order to improve that system somehow, such as with vaccines or HIV medication (where the pills trick your body into thinking its immune system is stronger than it actually is) or dialysis (where a machine does the work of your liver for you).

            but what about the pill is not improving the woman's reproductive system? it's immensely beneficial to a lot of women in reducing the pain of menstrual cramps, preventing ovarian cysts and even reducing the risk of cancer. i know of many young women who take the pill even though they're abstinent or lesbians, for other medical reasons. i don't think you can really say it's unnatural because it doesn't improve anything, since the pill has many well-documented health benefits for women (in addition to the emotional benefit of being in control of their bodies and being able to protect themselves against being impregnated by force–rape is way more "unnatural" than the pill, don't you think?).

            then you say that we can also determine natural vs. unnatural depending on the motive for having the pill or procedure. you give the example of having a c-section out of necessity vs. out of convenience. however, in my experience, in most cases a c-section is recommended but not mandated; a woman can choose to undertake a lot more risk and give birth naturally, or she can opt for the safer route of the c-section, depending on her particular circumstances. i wonder where you would draw the line in this case at calling a c-section natural? i mean, is a c-section only 'natural' if the woman has 100% risk of being harmed without it? what about a case with 75%, or 50% risk? what percentage of convenience vs. risk does there need to be in order to call the procedure natural or unnatural? similarly, you say that cosmetic surgery is unnatural — but what about in instances where it's medically necessary? or instances where it's not totally necessary, but would improve the life of the person (such as in the case of a deviated septum, where surgery could help the person breathe more easily, but they won't die without the surgery).

            sorry to go on about this, i'm just curious to know your thoughts, because it seems to me you're looking at the issue of natural / unnatural as black / white, where i see many many shades of gray in between. in your original post, you gave the example of a sort of esophagus condom that would allow you to binge on food but not gain weight. but you said that's wrong because it's unnatural. is it unnatural to consume caffeine, because it's an appetite reducer and it tricks your body into thinking it's full? is it unnatural to consume food with chemical additives like MSG, which make you want to eat more than you otherwise naturally would, also altering your bodily systems?

          • Rosaryjim

            @ok_go
            I wasn't bringing up "natural" as the "morally correct" way, but in my experience and research I have found that the "natural" choice is often the safer and healthier choice. I brought up natural specifically to highlight the logical, medical, and emotional reasons for practicing NFP versus chemical contraception, especially after having used both.
            One might argue that getting wasted, for example, is immoral *because* it is a rather stupid and somewhat dangerous choice on many levels. At least in Judeo-Christian terms, things that have been considered immoral have been shown to be attached to bad consequences, whether physical, emotional, or spiritual (though one might argue that they are the same thing).

            I did not say or mean to imply that birth control medications have no use or place in medicine – they should, however, be used for medical reasons and not for social ones if we are to remain consistent in our attitude towards drug use in America. We don't accept sports players (or the common man's) use of steroids to gain an edge in performance, but we do accept its use in respiratory diseases, for example. One use is considered "cheating nature", while the other use is considered "augmenting nature". Why that is the case or whether that view is valid is for another discussion, but in any case it's silly to be inconsistent in holding that belief for some medications, but not others.

            By cosmetic surgery I should have specified *purely* cosmetic surgery. I find the cat man or the lizard man fascinating, I don't find their choice to alter their faces to be an immoral one…perhaps an emotionally deficient one could be argued…but in any case having a dangerous surgery for zero medical gain is not at all natural, and hence, likely (but not always) going to be a bad gamble at best. As far as c-sections are concerned, I was referring to the recent trend (especially in NY) where women will have *elective* c-sections, followed by a tummy-tuck.

            I did have a deviated septum corrected, btw, and it has lead to a 75% reduction in serious infections from colds and helped me sleep. It's always more a question of risk/reward, smart/risky, but not moral/immoral.

            Caffeine is a naturally occurring alkaloid, btw, and I really have no problem with its use or any chemical use in moderation for therapeutic purposes. I did *not* say that being able to binge is "wrong because it's unnatural", I was pointing out how it is not logically *consistent* to state that one may perform a "natural" bodily function in an "unnatural" way and still say that it is, in fact, natural. I doubt anyone would dispute that eating followed by forced vomiting is a "natural" way to eat. Mostly I was pointing out that Adrrya's position that since "sex is a natural function so teenagers should be shown how to do it"(in an unnatural way) is logically inconsistent. Adrrya then responded with the charge that it was unfair to bring in "religion" and "morals"…which is why I didn't. In fact, I think it's more than a little unfair to respond with "not everyone has the same values as you" instead of responding to the actual points themselves. Perhaps because I used the word "monogamous", I was instantly assumed to be a pastor or a prude, but in the above argument, a committed polygamous or polygnous relationship would equally be considered "natural" in that sense.

          • ok_go

            @Rosaryjim,

            thanks, very interesting!

            that is a really interesting example about the sports players and steroids. i understand what you mean about the purpose of using the drug determining whether it's cheating nature vs. augmenting nature. although, i suppose the example is unique in that sports are not life: they are closed systems with their own sets of rules leading to a winner. whereas in life, the aim is not to "win" or to "cheat," and i don't think it's fair to call the Pill "cheating" nature. that implies that not getting pregnant is "winning," and having a baby is "losing," which is pro-choice rhetoric.

            that's interesting you brought up the idea of the natural vs. unnatural in response to that comment about 'sex is a natural functions so teens should shown how to do it' (unnaturally). i guess i didn't read far back enough in the thread :) i'm going back now and reading…

            i am not sure about the claim in the article that if killing people were legal, people would kill a lot more often. i mean, killing is illegal in many many places around the world (and around the country) and yet the murder rate is VERY different in different places. if what's restraining people is the law, not other factors, then why are the rates different even when the law is the same? it seems like there are other factors besides the law that drive people to kill, the same way there are other factors beside the law that drive people to have abortions. women are going to abort no matter what; i actually think this part of the pro-choice argument is pretty true. obviously it will help reduce rates to close down abortion providers but it won't stop abortion completely. if we want to completely eradicate abortion then we have to both attack the abortion providers but also attack the root cause (often it's poverty and lack of social support services). similarly to lower the murder rates in a city like NY, for instance, they both made tougher laws on guns/harsher sentencing and also made various infrastructure investments and created social support systems to reduce poverty in certain areas. NY's murder rates have been cut in half or more since these improvements in the 80s.

            anyway, in terms of the natural/unnatural thing, i think there are lots of other analogies you could draw, though. countless sorts of "natural" functions require education in order to be performed in an "unnatural" way in order to protect the person. using the bathroom is "natural" but young people need to be taught to use a sanitary, unnatural place (the toilet, rather than outside behind a tree) and have to be taught how to clean themselves (with artificial products like toilet paper and antibacterial soap) so they don't get infections. working out and being physically active is natural, but teens need to be taught to do it safely, sometimes in an unnatural way: for instance when i was a teenager on the track team, i had to take special dietary supplements so i didn't lose a dangerous amount of weight. i don't really know if this helps or contributes at all but these analogies just came to mind.

          • ok_go

            @rosaryjimthanks, very interesting!that is a really interesting example about the sports players and steroids. i understand what you mean about the purpose of using the drug determining whether it's cheating nature vs. augmenting nature. although, i suppose the example is unique in that sports are not life: they are closed systems with their own sets of rules leading to a winner. whereas in life, the aim is not to “win” or to “cheat,” and i don't think it's fair to call the Pill “cheating” nature. that implies that not getting pregnant is “winning,” and having a baby is “losing,” which is pro-choice rhetoric.that's interesting you brought up the idea of the natural vs. unnatural in response to that comment about 'sex is a natural functions so teens should shown how to do it' (unnaturally). i guess i didn't read far back enough in the thread :) i'm going back now and reading…i am not sure about the claim in the article that if killing people were legal, people would kill a lot more often. i mean, killing is illegal in many many places around the world (and around the country) and yet the murder rate is VERY different in different places. if what's restraining people is the law, not other factors, then why are the rates different even when the law is the same? it seems like there are other factors besides the law that drive people to kill, the same way there are other factors beside the law that drive people to have abortions. women are going to abort no matter what; i actually think this part of the pro-choice argument is pretty true. obviously it will help reduce rates to close down abortion providers but it won't stop abortion completely. if we want to completely eradicate abortion then we have to both attack the abortion providers but also attack the root cause (often it's poverty and lack of social support services). similarly to lower the murder rates in a city like NY, for instance, they both made tougher laws on guns/harsher sentencing and also made various infrastructure investments and created social support systems to reduce poverty in certain areas. NY's murder rates have been cut in half or more since these improvements in the 80s. anyway, in terms of the natural/unnatural thing,i think there are lots of other analogies you could draw, though. countless sorts of “natural” functions require education in order to be performed in an “unnatural” way in order to protect the person. using the bathroom is “natural” but young people need to be taught to use a sanitary, unnatural place (the toilet, rather than outside behind a tree) and have to be taught how to clean themselves (with artificial products like toilet paper and antibacterial soap) so they don't get infections.working out and being physically active is natural, but teens need to be taught to do it safely, sometimes in an unnatural way: for instance when i was a teenager on the track team, i had to take special dietary supplements so i didn't lose a dangerous amount of weight. i don't really know if this helps or contributes at all but these analogies just came to mind.

  • FinalEcho

    The problem with Hollywood is that their level of influence is so much greater than their actual qualifications. Most of these people have never set foot in a college — some might have never even graduated high school for all we know. There's no standard of education in Hollywood, after all. Not to mention that these guys are likely too busy fawning over themselves Charlie-Sheen style to actually take the time to look into the issues they're dealing with.

    So these unqualified people — these people we know nothing about beyond what they've shared with us in Star Magazine and on MTV Cribs — are suddenly telling millions of fans (who hang on their every word in many cases) how they should live their lives? They're telling them right from wrong? It's insane! No disrespect to actors and such, some are smart people. . .just that they're not philosophers, they're not scientists, their not moral leaders; they don't always know their stuff. We honestly give them way too much credit.

    • ok_go

      i dunno i mean justin bieber is pro-life…. who is more influential than him right now in celebrity land? i totally agree most actors are NOT smart and hardly any went to college and it's insane that we follow their advice in PSAs and whatever….. but when you think about it…… i mean usually the correlation is that the more educated you are the more "socially liberal" you are….. usually really highly educated people are pro-abortion not pro-life…… so why are all these uneducated actors pro-abortion?

  • ok_go

    aw man this post is kind of depressing! i don't really think things are worse today than they were before the 1950s… there was a big article a few days ago about how the rates of teen sex are actually going down recently (possibly thanks to abstinence education).

    i guess i don't really know anything cuz i've never seen an episode of Glee. but all the Tv i watched growing up was pretty heavy on the morality and emphasized no-sex-before-marriage kind of thing…. gilmore girls, 7th heaven, degrassi…. is Tv now really that different all of a sudden? i loved all those shows as a kid cuz it seemed to me at least they had a clear message of right and wrong and any character that was promiscuous was punished somehow in the episode, by parents or their peers. the post says "today, there is no ideal" but i feel like there definitely is an ideal! at least in big hollywood movies that i've seen…. practically every romantic comedy has the ideal of the perfect romantic beautiful straight couple at the end and they always get together and live happily ever after married. even that movie that just came out "no strings attached" was supposed to be about promiscuous sex, but (spoiler alert!) it actually turned out to be about monogamy and neither of them are with anyone else for the entire movie, and then they end up monogamous. even in the movie "juno" which was supposed to be so scandalous because it was about teen sex, it made having teen sex look pretty unappealing, IMO! i mean she was laughed at by the whole school and it was so awful with her parents and everything. it made me never want to get pregnant lol. i dunno, i feel like maybe people talk about sex more openly than they did in the 50s but i don't think that really means people are actually having more sex or that there isn't any romantic "ideal" left anymore.

  • Pingback: 5 Female Celebrities I’m Boycotting – And Why

  • Pingback: Five Pro-Abortion Women Celebrities Pro-Lifers Should Boycott | LifeNews.com

  • Ashley

    I just started the list and oh no Jennifer Aniston is on there!!!! Boo this sucks she’s really funny but I can’t watch and respect her because of her support for abortion and/or Planned Parenthood