The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

Posted on | September 9, 2016 | Comments Off on Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’


In 1999, Maggie Gallagher published “The Age of Unwed Mothers,” in which she conclusively demonstrated that the panic about teenage pregnancy (“kids having kids”) was fundamentally misguided. Contrary to what the media and politicians were telling Americans, teenage motherhood had significantly declined since the 1960s, and what had actually changed about motherhood was the decline of marriage rates for young women. Gallagher showed that the astonishing increase of unwed motherhood — now 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women — was largely a phenomenon involving women in their early 20s.


Teen motherhood is not a pathology. In fact, the highest rates of teenage motherhood in recent U.S. history were during the 1950s, the Golden Age of “Family Values.” The birth rate for females ages 15-19 was 96.3 per thousand in 1957, and is now a measly 26.6 per thousand. In “The Age of Unwed Mothers” (which you absolutely must read, if you’ve never read it before), Gallagher pointed out that statistics about “teenage pregnancy” had been consistently misrepresented in the media so that births to young adult women (ages 18 and 19) were conflated in the public mind with a negative stereotype, i.e., the 15-year-old girl who was doomed to be a high-school dropout and pass on to her child a legacy of poverty.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their agenda, however, so the scare campaign about teenage motherhood has been leveraged to promote sex education in schools. Am I the only person in America who sees how redundant “sex education” classes are in the 21st century?

If kids have questions about sex — e.g., “How does pregnancy happen?” — it doesn’t require much skill to Google it. Insofar as teenagers have a problem with sex, it is not because of a lack of information, but a lack of virtue. The basic function of human reproductive organs is not exactly a mystery, and requires no more than a day or two to explain in an eighth-grade biology class. However, teaching kids the Latin names for what’s in their pants (“scrotum,” “labia,” etc.) is less important than teaching them how to keep their pants on. What kids need to be taught are lessons about courtesy, morality, and personal responsibility.

What most Americans don’t realize is that the push for sex education in schools is directly connected to Planned Parenthood’s agenda of promoting contraception and abortion, to reduce the U.S. birth rate as part of deliberate program of population control funded by major tax-exempt foundations and implemented worldwide by the United Nations. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” but is a matter of historic fact best explained in Donald Critchlow’s 2001 book Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. John D. Rockefeller III and Hugh Moore were among the most influential proponents of what can fairly be described as an anti-motherhood crusade that led to both the development of the contraceptive pill and the legalization of abortion. Considering how contrary this was to the moral and religious beliefs of most Americans, the population-control movement set about to undermine those beliefs with a propaganda campaign, fostering a myth that reached its apogee with the 1968 publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich wrongly predicted worldwide mass starvation as a result of overpopulation, based on a fallacy of limited resources.

It was this misguided neo-Malthusian anti-baby agenda, rather than any concern for “women’s rights,” which was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood and the politics that led to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. As part of this campaign, Planned Parenthood lobbied for sex education programs to indoctrinate children with beliefs and attitudes that conform to and support the population-control agenda. When parents complained about what their children were being taught about sex at taxpayer expense, defenders of these programs claimed sex-ed classes were necessary to prevent teenage pregnancy. If this “education” is based on falsehood, guess what happens when these programs are implemented?

The lifelike dolls are meant to teach teenage girls what it’s like to raise an infant, warts and all. As part of high school sex-ed programs around the world, teachers give infant simulators to their female students, who care for the robots over the course of a few days.
The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”
“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”
Collins might have been onto something. In fact, according to a study published [Aug. 25] in the journal Lancet, putting a robot baby in the hands of 13- to 15-year-old Australian teens seemed to backfire.
Girls who participated in the virtual infant parenting, or VIP, program were more likely to become pregnant or have an abortion by their early 20s than those who did not, the authors found.
The Australian VIP program is similar to the RealCare babies — formerly, Baby Think It Over dolls — supplied by the U.S.-based company Realityworks. Researchers in the United States had previously criticized the Baby Think It Over dolls, but this marked the first randomized control trial examining the dolls’ efficacy. During the study, 1,267 girls took part in the VIP program, while a comparison group of 1,567 did not.
The trial period represented three years’ worth of robot interventions, from 2003 and 2006, involving 57 schools in Australia. The authors report that 8 percent of the girls who cared for infant dolls had at least one baby by age 20, whereas only 4 percent of the control group did; similarly, 9 percent of the VIP group had at least one abortion, compared with 6 percent of the non-doll group during that time.

You can read the whole thing. As someone who has extensive experience in the field of child care — with six children now ranging in age from 13 to 27 — I have long criticized these robot-baby programs, not because they might encourage pregnancy, but rather because babies are not robots. Children are not objects, but flesh-and-blood human beings.

Caring for our own flesh-and-blood offspring is both a matter of natural instinct and an entirely rational activity, once we understand the benefits of having babies, which no robotic doll can teach. You may not believe, as I do, that children are quite literally a blessing from God, yet the direct personal benefits of parenthood should be obvious to any young person who has the foresight to ask, “What will happen to me when I get old?” Do we want to be lonely, unloved and forgotten, or to be cherished, respected and cared for? This consideration alone should suffice as an incentive to have children, but beyond the purely selfish motives, having babies (and raising them with good values) also provides a benefit to society.

If you think there are “too many” people in the world, you are thinking of people too generally. Are there too many intelligent people in the world? Are there too many well-educated people, too many highly skilled people, too may hard-working people in the world? Are there too many kind people or too many honest people in the world? Most people who are literate enough to read this article probably think of themselves as above-average people, and rightly so. If you are a person of superior quality, doesn’t it make sense that you would have high-quality children? After all, a person as superior as yourself would be a very shrewd judge when it comes to selecting a spouse, so that your child would benefit from the superior qualities of both parents. And since you would instill excellent values in your children, teaching them to live according to the highest moral and ethical principles, the entire world will benefit from your decision to have a baby. Or six babies, as the case may be.


Contributing six superior quality offspring toward making the world a better place is not, however, my only philanthropic endeavor. I’m also busy explaining scientific truth to the blog-reading masses. For example, I’ve explained that feminism causes herpes, and now I’ve got some more scientific truth for you: Robots don’t have babies.

In fact, robots don’t have sex. Oh, sure, some people seem suspiciously enthusiastic about the idea of “sex robots,” but ask yourself, “Who is having ‘sex’ in that scenario?” (Hint: Not the robot.)

Really, it’s just robot-assisted onanism. Does anybody really need that kind of assistance? I rather doubt it. However, this technology does give feminists new opportunities to engage in paranoid outbursts: SEX ROBOTS WILL TURN MEN INTO MISOGYNIST MONSTERS! Of course, feminists already think all men are misogynist monsters, so this is not really anything new, not even in terms of blatant hypocrisy (because every feminist’s ideal boyfriend is a Hitachi Magic Wand.)

The best kind of sex is the old-fashioned kind.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Feminists hate God even more than they hate men, and feminists hate babies almost as much as they hate God. Basically, feminists hate life, so it’s probably better to have sex with a robot than to have sex with a feminist. At least a robot won’t give you herpes or accuse you of rape.


Remember: “PIV is always rape, OK?”



Comments are closed.