Having debunked local Democrat claims that men who stopped having sex voted for Trump out of spite against women, I’d like to move on to another observation. Is celibacy by teenagers an unnatural act?
Letting teenagers (as a rule) do whatever the hell they please is the best way to let them maximize their opportunity for trouble. I’m reasonably sure we’re all against that. Should we just let them go about this business undirected or unimpeded? Are these dogs humping in the yard undeserving of a blast from the cultural garden hose?
If so, who does that serve? Who or what benefits are derived?
The Laundry List
We know it’s not population control. Sex is the only way to make people. It’s also, if the left is to be believed, a worse planetary death than SMOD (sweet meteor of death). The more sex people are having, the more children they’ll probably create and boom! A Population apocalypse.
Since it’s not more people is better might it be so Planned Parenthood can peddle both its pre-sex and post sex services?
Limitless teen sex helps justify Planned Parenthoods existence and the forced funneling of tax dollars by Democrats to a private global corporation worth billions. If the condoms or birth control don’t get it done how about some RU-486 or, heck, we’ll scrape the baby out of you for a small fee. Maybe sell its parts to labs or to save some lucky infants life. Isn’t that ironic?
The tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to Democrat campaign triangle is well-known. Promoting teenage sex is one of the best ways to feed that laundromat. So, it’s not at all far-fetched for a Democrat to think or say that teenage celibacy is an unnatural act.
It might be self-serving, crass, and ill-advised from anyone presuming any leadership role in a community or government, but far-fetched it is not.
