As our society matures, we are not only discovering how our world works but we are also learning that we have to give up some rights and freedoms to avoid harming others, or so that society will work better.

It was back in the 1840s, before the days of sanitation and modern medicine, when the Boston area had an epidemic of puerperal fever among women giving birth to children. Oliver Wendell Holmes (the father of the famous Supreme Court Justice) set about trying to find a reason for this. He researched and studied all of the cases he could document, eventually creating what we today would call a pile of statistics. The statistics made it clear that puerperal fever was contagious and was being spread by doctors and midwives. The situation was not helped by the fact that many of the doctors insisted on wearing old frock coats which had never been washed and whose disreputable condition and number of stains were a mark of tenure in the medical community.

Change was slow in coming because many people refused to believe that germs existed since they could not be seen. However, this eventually taught us to change our criteria on actions to prevent the spread of germs. Two things are noteworthy. One is that the doctors gave up their right to wear germ-infested coats and people were forced to adhere to sanitary conditions for the good of others. The second is that we learned that there were no exceptions to the rule. It was a bad idea to spread germs regardless of the day of the week, whether we needed money, and regardless of the occupation of the person involved. There simply were no exceptions.

A second example is in the area of pollution. Statistics and reports educated us on how toxic chemicals polluted our atmosphere and waterways. Again, the same two things are noteworthy. People changed their criteria and lifestyles to give up their right to big cars and factories cleaned up the smoke from their smokestacks. Once more it was noteworthy that there were no exceptions to the rule. It was a bad idea to spread pollution regardless of the day of the week, whether someone needed money, or their occupation. There simply were no exceptions.

One of the more recent developments is in the area of smoking. For generations, smoking was considered a personal and pro-choice decision. However, because of recent statistics, we have found that smoking is not only harmful to the smoker but to non-smokers who are nearby. As a result, smoking has been prohibited in many public areas because of its impact on others. Again, we are faced with eliminating a pro-choice decision for the good of society

Researchers have been looking for the germ, pollution or cancer which causes social problems in society. Fortunately, numerous groups including federal and state agencies, medical research groups, universities and other research organizations have kept statistics and reports on social problems since they began to increase in the 1960s. What we have found is that social problems are caused by selfishness and the pro-choice attitude. When people are faced with a decision which will affect other people and society, they have two choices: they can make a selfish or pro-choice decision based on the wishes of the person committing the action, or they can make an unselfish decision based on what is best for others and our society.

All of this is very logical. One simple definition of society is: a group of people working together for common goals. When people are selfish, they are not working together nor working towards common goals. Hence, society suffers and social problems increase. Even more logical is the simplistic fact that what an individual wants may not be best for society. Hence, much of our decision making boils down to the simple decision between what an individual wants versus what is best for society and others. Should society give in to what an individual wants? Or, should the individual do what is best for society?

Again, logic dictates that it is impossible for one society to follow the wishes of a large number of individuals. This would pull society in many different directions at the same time, which is exactly what causes social problems. However, it is perfectly logical that individuals can work together for a single goal: what is best for others and society.

What about good old number one? Will I get hurt if I do what is best for society instead of what I want to do? Some people are concerned that they need to put themselves first because no one else will. However, the statistics on this point are both remarkable and interesting. They show that people who are unselfish and work together with others and do what is best for society, statistically live longer, are happier, and are less likely to live in poverty or have problems. It is obvious that being unselfish has its own substantial rewards.

This is very obvious in regard to children. Many children would like to leave school and eat ice cream and candy. However, in spite of the fact that it may not be what the children want, it is obviously best for both them and society that they get a good education and eat balanced meals.

Some people also bring up the fact that there are exceptions to statistics. Although that may be true, it does not change basic criteria. There are people who have smoked three packs of cigarettes for 30 years with no ill effects. People have jumped or fallen out of airplanes and lived. People have survived operations under less than sterile conditions. However, logic and the overwhelming statistics still dictate that we discourage people from smoking three packs of cigarettes daily, that we discourage people from jumping out of airplanes, and avoid operations which take place under less than sterile conditions.

It does not take much thought to discover that all of these decades of computer research and study effectively echo the Love of neighbor and Turn the other cheek admonishments given to us by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Did this carpenter from Nazareth figure this out himself or was there some divine intervention here? Moreover, similar admonishments have come from other great leaders and philosophers over the centuries. Confucius is quoted as saying: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In addition, President John F. Kennedy admonished us . . . and so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. You would think that by now we would learn and follow these admonishments.
 

Once again, we have found that there are no exceptions. Christ did not say Love your neighbor . . . except for political correctness and the demands of vocal groups. Neither did Confucius or President Kennedy offer exceptions to their admonishments.

The best way to explain this lack of exceptions is to go back several years to the argument over whether kids should be allowed to watch violence on television. Parents were opposed to this but most could not voice a reason. Liberals said that the kids had a right to watch whatever they wanted. Finally, the experts sided with the parents because of a process known as desensitization, which is the modern equivalent of what we used to call giving bad example. As the kids watch more and more violence on television, they become desensitized to violence and it becomes more acceptable to them.

This same desensitization process is at work in our society with both kids and adults in regard to selfishness and the pro-choice attitude. Different people may be affected to a greater or lesser degree, but the result is that selfishness spreads through society like germs spread through the air and pollutants spread through rivers and the atmosphere. As people see others being selfish and pro-choice, they become desensitized and become more selfish and pro-choice.

For quite some time the statistics told us that teens who smoked were also more likely to take drugs. More recently we discovered that adults who are pro-choice about marriage and stay-at-home mothers are also statistically more likely to be pro-choice on abortion. Some of the more recent statistics show that the amount of crime in different states can be linked to pro-choice decisions regarding marriage and even church attendance.

This explains why programs directed at eliminating social problems may be only partially effective . . . they are directed at the effect of the problem and not the cause. Our social problems are not separate problems but separate manifestations of one big problem, which is selfishness and the pro-choice attitude in our society.

Our current situation is similar to what Oliver Wendell Holmes faced in the 1840s. It was impossible to deal with the disease effectively if the doctors and midwives continued to spread the germs.

One of the best ways to explain this is to compare our society to a flooded basement caused by a faucet left open. Pumping the water out of the basement improves the situation but never solves it. In order to solve the problem, we must turn off the faucet. The water coming out of the faucet is selfishness and the pro-choice attitude while the flooded basement is the social problems they cause.

Several people have pointed out that the statistics developed over years, as well as the admonishments of these great leaders, echo the Christian belief that our time on earth is a test of our unselfishness for an afterlife.

Since pro-choice actions are interconnected and spread like germs and pollution, there are no exceptions in dealing with actions which affect others. Hence, cafeteria style morals are often contradictory since they do not take these connections and desensitization into consideration. A good example is that it is contradictory to complain about kids taking drugs and then be pro-choice on stay-at-home mothers when the statistics show that kids with a stay-at-home mother are less likely to get involved with drugs. It is also contradictory to discourage abortion and then be pro-choice on marriage and stay-at-home mothers since married women and stay-at-home mothers are less likely to have abortions.

Over the years, many individuals and organizations have moved away from old traditions and the no exceptions admonishments of Jesus Christ against selfishness. Instead, they have embraced cafeteria style morals to allow exceptions for political correctness and vocal groups. As it becomes increasingly obvious that selfishness and the pro-choice attitude spreads through society because of desensitization, these groups are finding that they are caught in conflicts and contradictions. Most of these center around three major factors in social problems which are marriage, parental supervision of children and church attendance.

Marriage

Married people are a positive influence on society since they are up to five times less likely to commit crimes, sometimes more than 50 times less likely to be the victim of a crime, and are less likely to be homeless, less likely to be on welfare, and less likely to need government assistance. When children are involved, marriage is also important. Numerous studies indicate that children raised by their married biological parents are much less likely get get in trouble with the law and have problems in school. A study done by the State of Wisconsin indicates that children raised in a traditional family with married biological parents are eight times less likely to become delinquent than some other living arrangements.

Why is marriage and the traditional family so important to society? The research and statistics suggest that marriage and family are a training ground where both children and adults learn to cooperate and work together for the good of the family. Society is an extension of the family and also requires people to cooperate to function smoothly. It is not surprising that statistics show that adults and children living in traditional families built around a good marriage are much less likely to cause social problems or be a problem or burden to society. In comparison, children brought up in a broken home miss seeing how important it is for parents and children to cooperate and work together for a common good. Children tend to imitate. If they are brought up in an environment with no adult cooperation, they often have difficulty in cooperating with adults in society.

Trial marriages and live-in arrangements are statistically only about half as good as traditional marriage and family. They are less cohesive than traditional marriage and are less likely to last.

Being pro-choice on marriage not only creates social problems but also spreads the pro-choice attitude through desensitization. In many respects, being pro-choice on marriage is a major negative for society since marriage is very public and hence is more influential in spreading desensitization.

Parental Supervision of Children

The research is very clear. As kids spend more time with their parents, they are less likely to get into trouble. As kids spend more time with their peers, they are more likely to get into trouble. A major portion of the parental supervision issue revolves around the family wage and stay-at-home mothers.

The statistics surrounding stay-at-home mothers seem to be magical. In no other area will you find so many different positive statistics for one decision. In addition to reducing desensitization, stay-at-home mothers help society in numerous ways including having a stronger marriage, reduced social problems with their own kids, reduced social problems with other kids in the neighborhood, less crime in the neighborhood and improved education of both their own kids and other kids in the neighborhood.

A major problem area for parental supervision of children is the difference between a family wage and equal pay for equal work. The family wage is not only more fair but is also better for society. With the family wage, compensation is provided for the stay-at-home mother who helps society and reduces social problems in several areas. In comparison, equal pay for equal work fails to compensate the stay-at-home mothers while encouraging mothers to leave their kids, causing more social problems and fostering the pro-choice attitude.

What is the best arrangement for society? You can make a simple but obvious comparison by using a model of 50 men and 50 women. If all are married with a stay-at-home mother, there are 50 people working. Each family gets an average of two percent of available wages and mom is home to take care of the kids. Next is a model where the moms go to work. We now have 100 workers, two per family. Each family still gets an average of two percent of the available wages but no one is home with the kids. Finally, we can look at a model where the couples divorced or never married. You now have 100 workers and 100 households, so each household now gets only one percent of the available wages and no one is home to take care of the kids.

It is a fairly simple procedure to look at who gains and who loses in a move from the family wage to the incorrectly-named equal pay for equal work. The big winners are the big corporations, which helps explain why they supported this movement. They now get two workers for the price of one through the simple expedient of reducing the number of higher paying and management positions and increasing the number of lower paying jobs. This goes a long way towards explaining why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It also goes a long way towards explaining why people seem to be busier with less free time for family and friends but are not significantly financially better off.

The big losers are society and children. Society does better when parents spend more time with their children. Equal pay for equal work encourages the opposite which is a major negative for society. It is also negative for society because it is detrimental to marriage, fails to discouraging crime in the neighborhoods, and encourages desensitization. It is also detrimental to women because they are less healthy and have a less stable marriage and home life.

Church Attendance

Research and statistics have endorsed the Love of Neighbor admonishment of Jesus Christ by showing that decisions which affect other people cannot be pro-choice but must be what is best for society and others. Jesus Christ also spoke of Love of God which has also shown up in the statistics and research. Individuals who attend church regularly are less likely to commit crimes and are less likely to become the victims of crimes. It is interesting that the statistics say attend and not necessarily believe. In addition, kids who attend schools where morals are taught do better in tests and are less likely to get in trouble with the law.

This tells us two things. One is that we should be more tolerant of other religions which teach morals and unselfishness since they improve our society. It is better that someone attend another church where morals are taught than attend no church at all. The second thing this teaches us is that there is no real separation of church and state. Since Christ taught us to do what is best for others and society, and since any government agency should want what is best for society, they are both working for common goals.

It does not take a genius to figure out what happened to our society. Freedom and tolerance became an obsession with us and we went too far. We made a point of accepting and tolerating things which people had no control over. This includes nationality, race and handicaps. All of this was undoubtedly good for society but unfortunately, we extended this acceptance and tolerance to things people could control, including being selfish and pro-choice on actions which impact others. As a result, some people assumed that they had a right to harm others.

It is now obvious that the most important social, moral, religious and personal question is deciding your criteria on when to be pro-choice and when to be unselfish on decisions which impact society and other people. What has happened is that many people feel that the person committing the action and others who think alike should be allowed to be pro-choice in making decisions but others must be unselfish. This is not only illogical but also hypocritical since a criteria must apply to all people and to all situations where decisions or actions affect others. This is why kids often distrust adults. Kids are expected to do what is unselfish and best for society while many adults think they have a right to be pro-choice.

Some people violently support their right to be pro-choice but just as violently object to others being pro-choice. They will openly give donations and sympathy to victims of pro-choice actions but continue to affirm their own right to be pro-choice and encourage pro-choice actions. No wonder we have crime and social problems.

Political and religious leaders should be bringing this to our attention but are often the worst offenders. Many are afraid to admonish their constituents and congregation for fear of loss of support. American politics is an example of democracy gone selfish. Instead of voting for what is best for society and country, people go to the polls to selfishly vote for what they want for themselves, their groups, and their states.

Here is where you have an opportunity to agree or disagree and make your own decision regarding your criteria. Where do you stand on when people should be pro-choice and have a right to harm others and when they should put others and society first? What criteria should you use to determine whether you should be unselfish or can be pro-choice in spreading germs, causing pollution, marriage, stay-at-home mothers, church attendance, selling drugs to kids and crime? You might also ask where your company, religion or organization should stand on this. 

There are three basic choices. In all cases, the criteria must apply to everyone and to all actions or decisions which affect others.

1. You can avoid making any decision or say that there should be no criteria since society should do what people want. This makes you a major contributor to desensitization and responsible for increased crime and social problems.

2. You can insist that everyone be unselfish in actions and decisions which affect others. This effectively echoes the admonishments of Jesus Christ and great thinkers but it leaves no room for exceptions.

3. You can take the position that these first two options are too black and white. Although there are no exceptions allowed with spreading germs and pollution, you can take the position that there should be exceptions with pro-choice decisions and spreading desensitization. Here are some of the more obvious suggestions:

a. Financially Qualified? - You can suggest that it is acceptable to be pro-choice or encourage people to be pro-choice in areas which can harm others, harm society and spread selfishness when a person feels they have a financial need. However, this opens the door to selling drugs to kids for money, to murder for profit, and conventional theft.

b. Politically Correct? - While being unselfish and improving society is nice, you can hold that it is more important to be politically correct. You can suggest that our criteria should be that we should follow the laws of a country even if doing so harms others. However, this opens the door to slavery, genocide and other atrocities fostered by various governments.

c. Inferior? - Some people think you can be pro-choice about enslaving, harming or killing others who you feel are inferior or less than human because of race, nationality, old age, not yet born, or mental or physical infirmity.

The biggest problem facing society today is getting people to understand that we should give up being selfish like animals and reach a new level of human maturity where we realize the benefits of working together for the good of society. It is important that people understand that social problems are interconnected and that selfishness and the pro-choice attitude spreads throughout society. Our goal is to have people make a conscious decision on their criteria on actions that affect others.