I just read the CNN report on the Jury verdict concerning the charge of rape made against a St. Paul's prep school senior. According to the report, it appears that the jury did not believe the young woman's testimony that the act was against her will, nor did they believe the young man's claim that there was no intercourse. He was acquitted of the rape charge and the most serious verdict rendered by the jury was that the defendant was guilty of a felony charge of ". . . using the internet to seduce, solicit or entice a child under age 16 in order to commit sexual assault."
The (now) nineteen year old defendant faces a possible eleven years in prison and must register as a sex offender . . . for the rest of his life. Whether or not the young man will have to forfeit his acceptance and scholarship to Harvard is not yet known, but likely.
There are only two people who know exactly what happened. The rest of us can only speculate on what is the truth. The jury seemed not to believe either one of them, but the jurors were able to arrive at some sort of "compromise" verdict. But, is it justice?
In looking at some information on teen age sex, it appears that much of underage sex that results in a pregnancy never gets reported to authorities. There are "activist" websites that promote abortion, including for underage teenagers, and provide information about the fourteen states in which parental consent or notification is not required. (http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html) Such sites also provide information on how to bypass parental notification or consent requirements in those states that do have some notification requirements. And, there are numerous references that show that Planned Parenthood provides abortions to teenagers and, in some cases, do their best to avoid determining the age of the person who impregnated the young woman. Why? Because, if they knew the age, they would have to report that, at the minimum, statutory rape may have been committed. Apparently, they consider performing the abortion more important than notifying the teenager's parents that a "medical procedure" is going to be performed, or notifying the police that a rape has been committed. Has what passes for "political correctness" evolved to the point where parents have to cede their parental rights to some unknown person? Or responsible "health care" providers can avoid reporting likely felonies to the police? But, that same "political correctness" prevents a school nurse from giving a teenaged student an aspirin to relieve a headache?
In the case of the St. Paul's students, the young woman's name cannot be divulged. And, even though the jury evidently believed the sex was consensual, the young man may serve a long term jail sentence, lose his ability to study at one of the country's most prestigious universities, and will forever have to carry the label and be publicly identified as a sex offender; an unforgiving "life sentence". Equal justice?
A former classmate sent me an article on the latest creation in the world of Political Correctness . . . this time it's, "gender neutrality". Now the PC mavens at the University of Tennessee have determined that to use the terms, he-she-male-female-boy-girl-masculine-feminine is not nice. In fact, those erudite keepers and definers of what is politically correct speech have determined that to use any of those descriptors is biased and/or prejudicial. They suggest the person does not have to use their given name nor do they have to use any word that would identify their gender; a term such as "Ze" may be used as a substitute.
Can it be that some have determined it is better not to provide an education that would provide the student with marketable skills so that they could achieve a reasonable level of independence and, perhaps, some level of wealth? Rather, do they feel that espousing some theoretical; feel good measure of equality of outcome is more important? Or, are they simply obsessed with denying that the sexes are in fact, different, and are purposely so?
We have seen a number of academia's finest espouse "humanism" — a code word meaning atheism. They seem to not want to believe that some Almighty power may have actually caused what is now called the "Big Bang theory". That big bang is what caused everything known to man and beyond, to be created . . . the stars, the planets, the meteors, the gaseous clouds, the land and seas, and time and space, plants and animals, and thoughts and reason . . . everything.
And, as we look around, we see the bees that sting and the birds that sing, the fish in the seas and the leaves on the trees, Trees that abound and grass on the ground, the apes and the grapes, iron and copper and the Burger King Whopper, and Adam and Eve, for all who believe. You see, every living thing was made to live and to sustain life. The oak sheds its acorn to feed the squirrels and begin the growth of another oak. The seeds of the grapes will produce another vine. The bees move from tree to tree or plant to plant to make it possible for the fruits to grow. And men and women make children. You see, in nature, the natural thing for plant or animal (including humans) is to pro-create.
Let's see if "Ze" can do that without any help.
(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)
- Category: Columns
- Hits: 644