The Spears family tradition carries on:
Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old "Zoey 101" star and sister of Britney, told OK! magazine that she's pregnant and that the father is her boyfriend, Casey Aldridge.
This next line is classic:
"It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected," she said. "I was in complete and total shock and so was he."
"So unexpected"? "Total shock"? Kids, this is basic human biology:
Sex = reproduction = baby
Jamie Lynn is stupid enough to find the natural consequences of sex "unexpected," so what does the celebrity magazine do? Give her a platform to lecture others:
What message does she want to send to other teens about premarital sex? "I definitely don't think it's something you should do; it's better to wait," she told the magazine. "But I can't be judgmental because it's a position I put myself in."
Right. Whatever you do, don't "be judgmental." As to the position Jamie Lynn put herself in, the expectant 19-year-old father is the son of a paper mill worker from Cleveland, Tenn.
It's hard not to be amazed by the consistent downward mobility of the Spears girls. One might expect that famous, successful and wealthy young women would choose as their companions famous, successful and wealthy young men. Alas, no.
Big sister Britney, at the very pinnacle of her success, selected as the sire of her offspring an unknown "backup dancer" (who, according to the courts, is actually the more responsible parent). And now little sister Jamie Lynn, a popular young TV actress, hooks up with an absolute nobody. (While the gossip blogs are going wild over this story, no one has yet reported whether the teenage dad has a high-school diploma or a job, let alone anything that might be called a "career.")
At least they can't be accused of being "judgmental," right?
— Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times
Comments (1)
There are solid points in this article, such as that we should exercise personal responsibility for our actions and make wise choices. Unfortunately, these solid points get lost in the stinging, misplaced and superficial nonsequitors:
Why must the sire of a woman's child be famous or wealthy?...isn't character more important?
hat is wrong with paper mill workers, or working class people in general?
The author would almost certainly answer in the affirmative, but that being the case, why isn't it what he wrote?
This young woman - however misguided - did make the courageous decision and personal sacrifice required to choose life, instead of abortion (abortion representing a refusal to take responsibility for one's actions....the exercise of power in the name of convenience by the strong over the weak, the enfranchised over the voiceless).
It is the public scorn like the kind seen in this article that pressures young girls into aborting innocent human life for reasons such as that the father is not famous or wealthy enough.
These considerations are beside the point. Instead, the emphasis should be on personal responsibility and morality, ex-ante - not the circumstances surrounding the result of irresponsible choices, post-hoc. Premarital sex is wrong and harmful...no matter who is participating. (Note that Anna Nicole Smith did not face the same criticism....that's American culture for you). The difference between the two scenarios lies in the convenience and utility of the unborn child to its parents. This is shameful.
Unborn children are innocent. Human life is inherently valuable, and we should not contribute to the chorus of social engineers who would pressure this and other young women to take their childrens' lives where the situation is not optimal.
What message does this article send? One might surmise that if only Jamie Lynn had aborted her child, she would never have been excoriated before a national audience by respected people like Mr. McCain...at least, I am afraid that that is the message that a young, afraid, vulnerable and impressionable pregnant woman would take away from this article. Or, in the alternative, it is OK to get knocked up, as long as the father is famous or wealthy. I trust that this was not the author's aim, but the message comes across nonetheless.
This author is generally not in the liberal elitist, social engineering "we know what's best for you" crowd - that's for sure! So, this article comes as a shock. I'm not sure what to make of it. I am counsel to a pro-life Member of the U. S. House of Representatives, and we are heartbroken to see one of our own write an article like this one.
In the face of this high profile teenage pregnancy, if we may argue that it is appropriate to focus in on this young woman's personal life (she is a celebrity after all), the Pro-Life movement has an opportunity to focus on why some women make the decision, in the face of crushing public pressure, to choose life. There are valuable lessons here, but I'm afraid we don't find them in this article.
Posted by JP | January 15, 2008 2:11 PM