Look­ing down on school­girls who fall preg­nant

Sunday Tribune - - NEWS&VIEWS -

WE MAY have been around for just a few min­utes in the evo­lu­tion­ary cy­cle, but this prob­a­bly amounts to a few mil­lion years.

So, we are un­cer­tain where and when the con­cepts of guilt, shock, shame and con­science first be­gan to de­velop in the hu­man mind. But they must have had a be­gin­ning, be­fore grad­u­ally be­ing in­stalled and force­fully con­di­tioned within the hu­man brain.

The front page ar­ti­cle in last week’s Sun­day Tri­bune Her­ald re­minds us of the “high and mighty, holier than thou,” moral ground that so­ci­ety con­tin­ues to take against un­wanted preg­nan­cies among school­girls.

There is al­ways some ex­pla­na­tion for why so­ci­ety frowns and looks down on girls who al­low them­selves to fall into the old­est trap known, other than just the one con­nected to moral­ity.

And that is to do with the prac­ti­cal­ity of the or­derly preser­va­tion of the hu­man race.

A child born out of wed­lock sel­dom en­joys ma­ter­nal love and at­ten­tion; the baby is of­ten dumped with frail grand­par­ents.

Thought­ful ed­u­ca­tion is mostly sec­ond-grade. Na­ture dis­likes weak­ness, which even­tu­ally could lead to self-de­struc­tion.

So so­ci­ety, with­out even re­al­is­ing it, cries “shame”, for the wrong rea­son, but in so do­ing as­sists the evo­lu­tion­ary cy­cle to pre­serve our ex­is­tence.

It is prob­a­bly, a spon­ta­neous in­stinct, a knee-jerk warn­ing, hid­den be­hind an un­de­fined “shame” for fe­males to be wary, of the no­tions of “guilt “and “re­jec­tion” to pre­serve or­der by sham­ing the un­for­tu­nate “fallen” fe­males, in an at­tempt to pre­vent oth­ers from fall­ing into this trap.

E S ESSA Dur­ban

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.